Sociolinguistic typology and sign languages

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Sociolinguistic typology and sign languages. / Schembri, Adam; Fenlon, Jordan; Cormier, Kearsy; Johnston, Trevor.

In: Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 9, No. FEB, 200, 21.02.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Schembri, Adam ; Fenlon, Jordan ; Cormier, Kearsy ; Johnston, Trevor. / Sociolinguistic typology and sign languages. In: Frontiers in Psychology. 2018 ; Vol. 9, No. FEB.

Bibtex

@article{36f3daedeb8747de9a6d258be4d13c8b,
title = "Sociolinguistic typology and sign languages",
abstract = "This paper examines the possible relationship between proposed social determinants of morphological 'complexity' and how this contributes to linguistic diversity, specifically via the typological nature of the sign languages of deaf communities. We sketch how the notion of morphological complexity, as defined by Trudgill (2011), applies to sign languages. Using these criteria, sign languages appear to be languages with low to moderate levels of morphological complexity. This may partly reflect the influence of key social characteristics of communities on the typological nature of languages. Although many deaf communities are relatively small and may involve dense social networks (both social characteristics that Trudgill claimed may lend themselves to morphological 'complexification'), the picture is complicated by the highly variable nature of the sign language acquisition for most deaf people, and the ongoing contact between native signers, hearing non-native signers, and those deaf individuals who only acquire sign languages in later childhood and early adulthood. These are all factors that may work against the emergence of morphological complexification. The relationship between linguistic typology and these key social factors may lead to a better understanding of the nature of sign language grammar. This perspective stands in contrast to other work where sign languages are sometimes presented as having complex morphology despite being young languages (e.g., Aronoffet al., 2005); in some descriptions, the social determinants of morphological complexity have not received much attention, nor has the notion of complexity itself been specifically explored.",
keywords = "Language complexity, Linguistic diversity, Morphology, Sign languages, Sociolinguistics, Typology",
author = "Adam Schembri and Jordan Fenlon and Kearsy Cormier and Trevor Johnston",
year = "2018",
month = feb,
day = "21",
doi = "10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00200",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
journal = "Frontiers in Psychology",
issn = "1664-1078",
publisher = "Frontiers",
number = "FEB",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Sociolinguistic typology and sign languages

AU - Schembri, Adam

AU - Fenlon, Jordan

AU - Cormier, Kearsy

AU - Johnston, Trevor

PY - 2018/2/21

Y1 - 2018/2/21

N2 - This paper examines the possible relationship between proposed social determinants of morphological 'complexity' and how this contributes to linguistic diversity, specifically via the typological nature of the sign languages of deaf communities. We sketch how the notion of morphological complexity, as defined by Trudgill (2011), applies to sign languages. Using these criteria, sign languages appear to be languages with low to moderate levels of morphological complexity. This may partly reflect the influence of key social characteristics of communities on the typological nature of languages. Although many deaf communities are relatively small and may involve dense social networks (both social characteristics that Trudgill claimed may lend themselves to morphological 'complexification'), the picture is complicated by the highly variable nature of the sign language acquisition for most deaf people, and the ongoing contact between native signers, hearing non-native signers, and those deaf individuals who only acquire sign languages in later childhood and early adulthood. These are all factors that may work against the emergence of morphological complexification. The relationship between linguistic typology and these key social factors may lead to a better understanding of the nature of sign language grammar. This perspective stands in contrast to other work where sign languages are sometimes presented as having complex morphology despite being young languages (e.g., Aronoffet al., 2005); in some descriptions, the social determinants of morphological complexity have not received much attention, nor has the notion of complexity itself been specifically explored.

AB - This paper examines the possible relationship between proposed social determinants of morphological 'complexity' and how this contributes to linguistic diversity, specifically via the typological nature of the sign languages of deaf communities. We sketch how the notion of morphological complexity, as defined by Trudgill (2011), applies to sign languages. Using these criteria, sign languages appear to be languages with low to moderate levels of morphological complexity. This may partly reflect the influence of key social characteristics of communities on the typological nature of languages. Although many deaf communities are relatively small and may involve dense social networks (both social characteristics that Trudgill claimed may lend themselves to morphological 'complexification'), the picture is complicated by the highly variable nature of the sign language acquisition for most deaf people, and the ongoing contact between native signers, hearing non-native signers, and those deaf individuals who only acquire sign languages in later childhood and early adulthood. These are all factors that may work against the emergence of morphological complexification. The relationship between linguistic typology and these key social factors may lead to a better understanding of the nature of sign language grammar. This perspective stands in contrast to other work where sign languages are sometimes presented as having complex morphology despite being young languages (e.g., Aronoffet al., 2005); in some descriptions, the social determinants of morphological complexity have not received much attention, nor has the notion of complexity itself been specifically explored.

KW - Language complexity

KW - Linguistic diversity

KW - Morphology

KW - Sign languages

KW - Sociolinguistics

KW - Typology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85042351608&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00200

DO - 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00200

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85042351608

VL - 9

JO - Frontiers in Psychology

JF - Frontiers in Psychology

SN - 1664-1078

IS - FEB

M1 - 200

ER -