Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Open Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Ehrhart, Sabine

1 Issue per year


Covered by:
Elsevier - SCOPUS
Clarivate Analytics - Emerging Sources Citation Index
ERIH PLUS

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2300-9969
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Sociolinguistic Variation in the Nativisation of BSL Fingerspelling

Matt Brown
  • University College London, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Kearsy Cormier
  • Corresponding author
  • University College London, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-05-27 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2017-0007

Abstract

British Sign Language (BSL) is a visual-gestural language distinct from spoken languages used in the United Kingdom but in contact with them. One product of this contact is the use of fingerspelling to represent English words via their orthography. Fingerspelled loans can become “nativised”, adapting manual production to conform more closely to the native lexicon’s inventory of phonemic constraints. Much of the previous literature on fingerspelling has focused on one-handed systems but, unlike the majority of sign languages, BSL uses a two-handed manual alphabet. What is the nature of nativisation in BSL, and does it exhibit sociolinguistic variation? We apply a cross-linguistic model of nativisation to BSL Corpus conversation and narrative data (http://bslcorpusproject.org) obtained from 150 signers in 6 UK regions. Mixed effects modelling is employed to determine the influence of social factors. Results show that the participants’ home region is the most significant factor, with London and Birmingham signers significantly favouring use of fully nativised fingerspelled forms. Non-nativised sequences are significantly favoured in signers of increasing age in Glasgow and Belfast. Gender and parental language background are not found to be significant factors in nativisation. The findings also suggest a form of reduction specific to London and Birmingham.

Keywords: British Sign Language; fingerspelling; sociolinguistic variation

References

  • Bailey, Guy, Tom Wikle, Jan Tillery & Lori Sand. 1991. The apparent time construct. Language Variation and Change 3(3). 241-64. doi: 10.1017/S0954394500000569.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Battison, Robbin. 1978. Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstock Press.Google Scholar

  • Bayley, Robert, Adam Schembri & Ceil Lucas. 2015. Variation and change in sign languages. In Adam Schembri & Ceil Lucas (eds.), Sociolinguistics and Deaf Communities, vol. 61-94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Brennan, Mary. 2001. Making borrowings work in British Sign Language. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Foreign vocabulary in sign languages: Cross-linguistic investigation of word formation, Sign, 49-86. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

  • Brentari, Diane. 1995. Prosodic constraints in American Sign Language: Evidence from fingerspelling and reduplication. In H. Bos & T. Schermer (eds.), Sign language research 1994: Proceedings of the Fourth European Congress On Sign Language Research, Munich, September 1-3, 1994, 39-52. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar

  • Brentari, Diane. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Brentari, Diane & Carol Padden. 2001. Native and foreign vocabulary in American Sign Language: A lexicon with multiple origins. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Foreign vocabulary: A cross-linguistic investigation of word formation, 87-119. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

  • Cormier, Kearsy, Adam Schembri & Martha E. Tyrone. 2008. One hand or two? Nativisation of fingerspelling in ASL and BANZSL. Sign Language and Linguistics 11(1). 3-44. doi: 10.1075/sl&l.11.1.03cor.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cormier, Kearsy, Jordan Fenlon, Trevor Johnston, Ramas Rentelis, Adam Schembri, Katherine Rowley, Robert Adam & Bencie Woll. 2012. From corpus to lexical database to online dictionary: Issues in annotation of the BSL Corpus and the development of BSL SignBank In Onno Crasborn et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on the representation and processing of sign languages: Interactions between corpus and lexicon [workshop part of 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2012, Istanbul, Turkey], 7-12. Paris: ELRA.Google Scholar

  • Cormier, Kearsy, Jordan Fenlon, Sannah Gulamani & Sandra Smith. 2015. BSL Corpus Annotation Conventions, v. 2.1, http://www.bslcorpusproject.org/wp-content/uploads/BSLCorpus_AnnotationConventions_v2.1_July2015.pdf. Deafness, Cognition and Language Research Centre, University College London.Google Scholar

  • Department of Education and Science. 1968. The Education of Deaf Children: The Possible Place of Finger Spelling and Signing (The Lewis Report). London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.Google Scholar

  • Emmorey, Karen. 2002. Language, Cognition, and the Brain: Insights from Sign Language Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

  • Guy, Gregory R. 1988. Advanced VARBRUL analysis. In Kathleen Ferrara (ed.), Linguistic change and contact, 124-36. Austin, Texas: University of Texas, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • Janzen, Terry. 2012. Lexicalization and grammaticalization. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 816-40. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Johnson, Daniel Ezra. 2009. Getting off the GoldVarb Standard: Introducing Rbrul for Mixed-Effects Variable Rule Analysis. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(1). 359-83. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00108.x.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Johnson, Daniel Ezra. 2010. Rbrul Manual. http://www.danielezrajohnson.com/Rbrul_manual.htmlGoogle Scholar

  • Johnston, Trevor. 2003. BSL, Auslan and NZSL: Three signed languages or one? In Anne Baker, Beppie van den Bogaerde & Onno Crasborn (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, 47-69. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Mayberry, Rachel. 2010. Early language acquisition and adult language ability: What sign language reveals about the critical period for language. In M. Marschark & P. Spencer (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language and Education: Volume 2, 281-91. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • McKee, David & G. Kennedy. 2006. The distribution of signs in New Zealand Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 6(4). 373-90. doi: 10.1353/sls.2006.0027.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McKee, David & Rachel McKee. 2011. Old signs, new signs, whose signs?: sociolinguistic variation in the NZSL lexicon. Sign Language Studies 11(4). 485-527. doi: 10.1353/sls.2011.0012.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mitchell, Ross E. & Michael Karchmer. 2004. Chasing the mythical ten percent: Parental hearing status of deaf and hard of hearing students in the United States. Sign Language Studies 4(2). 138-63. doi: 10.1353/sls.2004.0005.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Office for National Statistics (ONS). 2013. Key Statistics and Quick Statistics for local authorities in the United Kingdom. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_330610.pdfGoogle Scholar

  • Rickford, John R., Thomas A. Wasow, Norma Mendoza-Denton & Juli Espinoza. 1995. Syntactic variation and change in progress: Loss of the verbal coda in topic-restricting as far as constructions. Language 71. 102-31. doi: 10.2307/415964.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sandler, Wendy. 1989. Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

  • Sandler, Wendy. 1993. A sonority cycle in American Sign Language. Phonology 10(2). 243-79. doi: 10.1017/S0952675700000051.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Schembri, Adam, Kearsy Cormier, Trevor Johnston, David McKee, Rachel McKee & Bencie Woll. 2010. Sociolinguistic variation in British, Australian, and New Zealand sign languages. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign Languages: A Cambridge Language Survey, Sign, 476-98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Schembri, Adam & Trevor Johnston. 2007. Sociolinguistic Variation in the Use of Fingerspelling in Australian Sign Language (Auslan): A Pilot Study. Sign Language Studies 7(3). doi: 10.1353/sls.2007.0019.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Schembri, Adam & Trevor Johnston. 2012. Sociolinguistic aspects of variation and change. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach & B. Woll (eds.), Sign language: an international handbook, 788-816. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Schembri, Adam, David McKee, Rachel McKee, Sara Pivac, Trevor Johnston & Della Goswell. 2009. Phonological variation and change in Australian and New Zealand Sign Languages: The location variable. Language Variation and Change 21(02). 193. doi: 10.1017/s0954394509990081.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Stokoe, William. 1960. Sign Language Structure: An Outline of the Visual Communication Systems of the American Deaf. Studies in linguistics: Occasional papers (No. 8). Buffalo, NY: Dept. of Anthropology and Linguistics, University of Buffalo.Google Scholar

  • Sutton-Spence, Rachel. 1994. The role of the manual alphabet and fingerspelling in British Sign Language. University of Bristol dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Sutton-Spence, Rachel & Bencie Woll. 1999. The linguistics of British Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Sutton-Spence, Rachel, Bencie Woll & Lorna Allsop. 1990. Variation and recent change in fingerspelling in British Sign Language. Language Variation and Change 2. 313-30. doi: 10.1017/S0954394500000399.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Tasci, Suleyman S. 2013. Hand reversal and assimilation in TID lexicalized fingerspelling. In Engin Arik (ed.), Current Directions in Turkish Sign Language Research, 72-100. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar

  • Valli, Clayton & Ceil Lucas. 1992. Linguistics of American Sign Language: A Resource Text for ASL Users. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar

  • Wilcox, Sherman. 1992. The phonetics of fingerspelling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Woll, Bencie & Paddy Ladd. 2011. Deaf communities. In M. Marschark & P. Spencer (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language and Education, 159-72. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Zeshan, Ulrike. 2000. Sign Language in Indo-Pakistan: A Description of a Signed Language. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2016-10-18

Accepted: 2017-03-16

Published Online: 2017-05-27

Published in Print: 2017-01-26


Citation Information: Open Linguistics, Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages 115–144, ISSN (Online) 2300-9969, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2017-0007.

Export Citation

© 2017. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. BY-NC-ND 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in