Emergence and evolutions: Introducing sign language sociolinguistics

The sociolinguistics of sign languages parallels as well complements the spoken languages. All key areas sociolinguistics, such multilingualism, language contact, variation, and attitudes—are immediate relevance to At same time, researchers using a range data sources methods (e.g., corpora, linguistic elicitation, ethnography) have showed that unique natures features allow us look at all these from different vantage point. First, deficit perspectives on deafness serve sharply distinguish reality status has been long contested, certain forms signing are still labeled “nonlanguage.” delineation differentiation languages, other practices gesturing, home sign) therefore issue. Second, used by both deaf hearing people, in contexts where spoken/written increasingly also use, leading complex multimodal sign–spoken, sign–written, sign–sign hierarchical constellations attitudes ideologies relation signed variants. La sociolingüística de las lenguas señas existe en paralelo la habladas, pero también complementa. Todos los temas clave sociolingüística, tales como el multilingüismo, contacto lingüístico, variación lingüística y actitudes lingüísticas son relevancia inmediata para señas. Al mismo tiempo, aprovechándose una gama fuentes datos métodos (por ejemplo, corpus señas, elicitación etnografía lingüística), investigadores han mostrado que atributos características únicas nos permiten examinar todos estos desde otro punto vista. En primer lugar, perspectivas tratan sordera deficiente sirve contrastar realidad con habladas. El estatus lingüístico ha sido disputado por mucho tiempo algunos modos hacer todavía están calificados “acciones no constituyen un sistema lingüístico”. Por eso, delineación diferenciación entre otras prácticas (como gestos o caseras) tema clave. segundo tanto sordos oyentes usan contextos combinan habladas escritas, además Esto da lugar formas “multimodales” complejas – existen contacto; redes jerárquicas e ideologías relación sus variantes. very nature society is relevant their study (Roy & Metzger, 2014; Schembri Lucas, 2015). Sign national ones American Language (ASL) (Supalla Clark, 2014); or rural (such Adamorobe Ghana), members community, deaf, use (Nyst, 2007; Zeshan Vos, 2012); alternate (Kendon, 1989) Plains Indian speakers mutually unintelligible Native sometimes communities (Davis, emerged differing scales too: locally, wider ecologies feature ample gesture (Branson et al., 1999); which mostly schools families widely throughout countries beyond borders migration); some around world international contexts, most notably International (Parks, Kusters, 2021). geographical spread developed largely independently identified (Padden, 2011). (socio)linguists documented varied social respectively Palfreyman, 2019), mixed deaf/hearing Marsaja, 2008), Kendon, 1989), proposed accounts how shape structures Ellis 2019; 2018). sensory asymmetries between people lead differences reception production (elements of) central concern studies opposed we expand below (De Meulder 2019). author pairs this Dialogue issue introduce number themes debates explore why debates; situated within whole; does not similar debates. In order give authors room think established subject “language contact” “variationism”), chose for five titles foreground represent debates: geographies circulations; lumping splitting; hierarchies constellations; continua spectra; natural elicited. These main with introduced below. do exist sociolinguistic vacuums—sign often use. An increasing signers fluent multiple and/or short, multilingualism concerns users an extremely rich topic investigation (Van Herreweghe Vermeerbergen, 2004; Webster, 2020). Multilingualism course closely linked phenomena attested contact bilingualism seen situations, along ones, related signers. Examples include fingerspelling (i.e., manual representation writing system assimilated into phonology many languages), (partial) mouthing words, code-blending (also called sign-speaking code-mixing), chaining concept then it) (Bagga-Gupta, 2000; Humphries MacDougall, 2000, Holmström Schönström, 2018; Lucas Valli, 1992; Tapio, “Geographies Circulations,” Robert Adam Ben Braithwaite address including discussion role/status mouthings, fingerspelling, contact. Countries children religious heritages regions) There typically one more minority majority (national) language, usually learn too (Adam, 2016); migration mobility Quinto-Pozos, 2008; Panda, 2015); context abovementoned “shared languages” 2012a), shared (Kisch, 2008) like Adamorobe, Ghana. communities, learned addition rural/shared (Kusters, can trigger endangerment (Nonaka, 2004). phenomenon (a lingua franca), result critical masses over globe encounter each either informally, example, professional gatherings (Rosenstock Napier, 2016, Whynot, 2016). endangered, young (see e.g., Hofer, 2017). (2019) notes shift another seems happen quickly than generally case context, scholars studied planning initiatives were prevented reversed. For Moges (2015) Moriarty (2020a) investigated challenges global North South. Phonological, morphological, syntactic, lexical variation described wide starting early 1965, mention first ASL dictionary based principles (Stokoe 1965) Black community United States. Woodward (1976) continued investigation, did Bayley Valli (2001) ASL. McCaskill al. (2011) describe variety countries, varieties Quinn, 2010). Variation associated varying naming (Palfreyman, 2020a, 2020b). example name BISINDO (Indonesian Language) cover extensive country (= lumping) versus identifying several splitting), done eg. Vietnam Thailand (Woodward, 2003). “Lumping Splitting,” Nick Palfreyman variational discussing abovementioned examples; controversial grouping BSL-influenced together BANZSL (British, Australian, New Zealand Language), ASL-influenced outside USA. Discourses expressed (Hill, 2012; Kusters 2020; Tamene, thoughts, beliefs, feelings about projected vs. white urban rural), practices, role gesture, “imperialist” language. “Hierarchies Constellations,” Joseph Hill Eyasu Tamene form ideological relate oppressive race relations. Discourse analysis area examinations everyday conversations involving (Coates Sutton-Spence, 2001; 2002; Winston, 1999) (overlapping phenomena, see Shaw, classroom discourse (Mulrooney, 2015), interpreted settings ranging classrooms medical legal conference Major Nicodemus Russell Hale, 2009). So, principal defined clearly apply well. Below, discuss two issues examination aspects languages—both structural sociolinguistic—relating oppression marginalization myth verbal deprivation particularly dangerous, because it diverts attention real defects our educational imaginary child…. useful service linguists perform today clear away illusion provide adequate notion relations standard nonstandard dialects (1972, p. 202). He proceeded produce numerous actual inspire 50 years Parallels might be perceptions reflecting diminished cognitive capacities (Baynton, 1996; Lane, 1992). Some hear. This due reasons: chromosome carried parents, obstruction middle ear, nonfunctioning auditory nerve, birth trauma, medication harms aural facilities, viral bacterial infection damages inner ear. As result, marked peers who (2017: 1) pathological condition, caused neurological anomalies ear center brain…. overcoming involves rehabilitating organs… rehabilitation accompanied intensive therapy assist development listening speaking skills. such, model aligned oralist philosophy (Mathews, 2017: 3) basic idea what “normal” “natural” humans should goal 1996). push widespread “pure oralism” only speech, signing) education since 19th century persists, despite implementation medium instruction Deaf thus viewed deprived way viewed. extreme version this, current developments genetic engineering, genes cause edited out (Blankmeyer Burke contrast view existing alongside view, “culturo-linguistic view,” focusing cultural norms, history, artistic expression poetry storytelling theatre, dance, visual arts painting (Ladd, layers society, much culturo-linguistic one. (1975 cited Bauman, 2004, 13) audism, whereby “one superior one's ability hear behave manner hears.” Doctors audiologists working withparents aim baby speak technological specialist support aids cochlear implants (Blume, 2010; Mauldin, professionals actively discourage parents exposing languages: “contagious” (Friedner, deprivation, being denied environment thrive linguistically, situation (Hall 2012). failure oralism educating gradually led increased systems involved hands while talking, resulting unnatural inaccessible (Scott Henner, gradual increase mainstreaming students public 1970s isolated alternative (often interrupted) pathways learning maintenance (Weber, This, formed residential late 1700s grew thrived continuously across generations. group heritage (Pichler 2018), (residential) school children, Western now skewed toward older age groups decreasing (Johnston, On hand, there new Meulder, 2018) nonheritage background acquisition path. Many comfortably, technology. Furthermore, growing heterogeneous investments interpreters students. witnessing signs repertoire outnumbering children: “baby signing” courses (Pizer 2007), (Napier, 2021), elective). embodiment serves connection second issue; ‘recognition’ communities’ demand aspect laws campaigns drive them- tend cases need prove they bona fide centrality rooted normativity modality (…), motivated ‘recognize’, law, ‘in own right’. (2019, 301) “real” huge consequences, decisions earliest point people's access information overall participation through interpreters). Against quest “prove” genuine strategic essentialisms penetrate sociolinguistics. Ladd (2003) argued, crucial open up spaces views flourish. Below section will show, easing strategical mentioned below, so establishment (socio)linguistics. linguistics initially relied strict separation communication When was academic discipline 1960s onwards (McBurney, 2012), adopted foundational apparatus linguistics, is, focus language-like functioned vocabularies syntax Structural focused articulated written transcriptions them—co-speech gestures silent ignored studies. Similarly, when “proved” fully fledged par relatively age, cost separating gesturing signing. deemed linguistic, 2008, Sahasrabudhe, respect, iconicity (spoken examples onomatopoeia sound symbolism) straightforward studies, sought show structure arbitrary just “pictures air.” Although onward Mandel, 1977), openly described, recognized general property (Perniss making included work creative signing, metaphor, humor, poetry, storytelling—some collective activities (Sutton-Spence Kaneko, discussed connections decades Brennan, Johnston, 1989b; Klima Bellugi, 1979) time depth distinction (as category language) field linguistics. Scholars gestures; gesture-based nonsigners; “fully (Green, Hou, 2017a; Reed, foregrounded complexity diverse (including gestures, sign, family signs, local signs) socialization processes ideologies. “Classifications Typologies,” Lynn Hou Connie Vos classifications debate whether extent fit patterns particularities Because mutual impact scholarly ideologies, bounded/named walking tightrope: above, adults, fighting political recognition Italian “merely gesture” opponents its (Geraci, Early demonstrating human discrete parts analyzed. consist creating come units, units While similarities those comparison manual-visual oral-auditory yields interesting contrasts. Contrasts arise compare unimodal conventions morphology classifiers). inflectional derivational practically nonexistent innatural prefixes suffixes showing versions -LY, -ED, -NESS, forth. It encode meanings affixes; do, but movement, facial expression, location separate signs. demonstrate classifier predicates Thai Other instead emphasizing comparing face-to- face intersubjective uses simultaneous Edwards, Kendon 2014). Depending theoretical approach, examine dominant every day, may influence used. Yet consider on. Appendix Stokoe's (1965) Dictionary consisted Carolina Virginia—in itself barely year old Chomsky's beginning dominate. Another BSL 1990).Most recently, corpus-based analyses (Fenlon Hochgesang, scrutiny analyze any kind face-to-face (Ferrara Hodge, continue providing deeper effect factors influencing effects poor experiences. “Natural Elicited,” Gabriele Hodge Sara Goico methodological approaches considering constitutes (although suggest “unnatural”; Milroy Gordon, traditionally, elicited (something changing, Internet corpora; 2020) corpora important broad usage; ethnographers naturally occurring data, yet small samples. contribution discusses broadening methodologies next provides background. DeSantis, 1977) questionnaires collection. instances, filmed glosses stimuli. However, videotaping means collecting expanded rapidly: sociolinguists recordings spontaneous conversations, interviews researchers, elicitation tasks. ethnographic increased, (Hou A great deal collected above. But technologies having significant signer screen, present difficult specify relative formality Mirus (2008) details specific register. eye gaze, space, one-handed two-handed interactions, brand discourse, ways cohesion accomplished forms. researched pertains accompany (see, Baron, 2008 others), screens/cameras rapidly expanding (Lucas 2013 Twitter #emboxeddiscourse). approach participants large assemblance person, individual living good knowledge negative least work. served consultants models (mostly white) research fatigue (which reason developing corpora). Resentment concerning skills ownership findings dominance superiority English publication (Singleton facts assistants empowered academia elsewhere, caution reluctance cooperate researchers. disseminating among 2015b; www.acadeafic.org). Considering positionality utmost importance (Hou, (1992) demonstrated sensitive interviewer's audiological ethnicity White). sensitivity manifested rapid switching Signed code English) (an outcome English, characterized core continuous mouthing). overwhelmingly criticized challenged. projects problematically small. underrepresented marginalized almost imperceptible, BIPOC, lower castes, Aboriginals, Americans, First Nations, ethnic minorities. English-speaking European set agenda minoritized develop emphasize others. redress initial imbalance, Dialogue, pair consists coauthor experienced signers, lives practice. conclusion, full We areas—multilingualism, bilingualism, policy planning, attitudes, analysis—are continuing expand, descriptions ever-increasing multilingualismof inclusion much-needed bring them, astonishing innovations technology affecting practices. By extension, fundamental collection expanding. autonomous whole, productive promising. Thank you (in alphabetical order) Jordan Fenlon, Monica Heller, Gabrielle Yoonhee Kang, Erez Levon, helpful feedback earlier text. errors remain own.