1887
Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1387-9316
  • E-ISSN: 1569-996X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

In Sao Tome and Principe there are approximately five thousand deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. Until recently, these people had no language to use among them other than basic home signs used only to communicate with their families. With this communication gap in mind, a project was set up to help them come together in a common space in order to create a dedicated environment for a common sign language to emerge.

In less than two years, the first cohort began to sign and to develop a newly emerging sign language – the Sao Tome and Principe Sign Language (LGSTP). Signs were elicited by means of drawings and pictures and recorded from the beginning of the project. The emergent structures of signs in this new language were compared with those reported for other emergent sign languages such as the Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language and the Lengua de Señas de Nicaragua, and several similarities were found at the first stage.

In this preliminary study on the emergence of LGSTP, it was observed that, in its first stage, signs are mostly iconic and exhibit a greater involvement of the articulators and a larger signing space when compared with subsequent stages of LGSTP emergence and with other sign languages. Although holistic signs are the prevalent structure, compounding seems to be emerging. At this stage of emergence, OSV seems to be the predominant syntactic structure of LGSTP. Yet the data suggest that new signers exhibit difficulties in syntactic constructions with two arguments.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sll.20.1.04min
2017-11-06
2019-10-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Al-Fityani, Kinda
    2007 Arab sign languages: A lexical comparison. Technical Report. Center for Research in Language Newsletter19(1).
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aronoff, Mark , Irit Meir , Carol A. Padden & Wendy Sandler
    2008 The roots of linguistic organization in a new language. Interaction Studies: Special Issue on Holophrasis vs. Compositionality in the Emergence of Protolanguage9(1). 131–150.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Carmo, Patrícia , Ricardo Oliveira & Ana Mineiro
    2013Dicionário da Língua Gestual de São Tomé e Príncipe – Dicionário oficial da República Democrática de São Tomé e Príncipe. Lisboa: UCEditora.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Caroça, Cristina
    . In preparation. Contribution to the study of epidemiological factors associated with sensorineural hearing loss in the population of Sao Tome and Principe. Lisbon: Catholic University of Portugal. PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Cormier, Kearsy
    2012 Pronouns. In Roland Pfau , Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language. An international handbook (HSK – Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science), 227–244. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110261325.227
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.227 [Google Scholar]
  6. Dachkovsky, Svetlana , Christina Healy & Wendy Sandler
    2013 Visual intonation in two sign languages. Phonology30(2). 211–252. doi: 10.1017/S0952675713000122
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675713000122 [Google Scholar]
  7. Fischer, Susan & Harry van der Hulst
    2011 Sign language structures. In Mark Marschark & Patricia E. Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education, Volume1 (2nd edition), 336–349. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Frishberg, Nancy
    1975 Arbitrariness and iconicity: historical change in American Sign Language. Language51. 696–719. doi: 10.2307/412894
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412894 [Google Scholar]
  9. Goldin-Meadow, Susan
    2003The resilience of language: What gesture creation in deaf children can tell us about how all children learn language. New York: Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Kegl, Judy , Ann Senghas & Marie Coppola
    1999 Creation through contact: Sign language emergence and sign language change in Nicaragua. In Michael DeGraff (ed.), Language creation and language change: creolization, diachrony, and development, 197–237. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Kisch, Shifra
    2012 Demarcating generations of signers in the dynamic sociolinguistic landscape of a shared sign-language: the case of the Al-Sayyid Bedouin. In Ulrike Zeshan & Connie de Vos (eds.), Sign languages in village communities: anthropological and linguistic insights, 87–125. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9781614511496.87
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511496.87 [Google Scholar]
  12. Hockett, Charles F.
    1960 The origin of speech. Scientific American203. 88–111. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0960‑88
    https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0960-88 [Google Scholar]
  13. Labov, William
    1994Principles of linguistic change. Volume I: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2001Principles of linguistic change. Volume II: External factors. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Liddell, Scott K.
    1980American Sign Language syntax. The Hague: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Meir, Irit & Wendy Sandler
    2008A language in space. The story of Israeli Sign Language. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Meir, Irit , Wendy Sandler , Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff
    2010 Emerging sign languages. In Mark Marschark & Patricia E. Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education, Volume2, 267–280. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Padden, Carol , Irit Meir , Wendy Sandler & Mark Aronoff
    2010 Against all expectations: Encoding subjects and objects in a new language. In Donna Gerdts , John Moore & Maria Polinsky (eds). Hypothesis A / hypothesis B: Linguistics explorations in honor of David M. Perlmutter, 383–400. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Perniss, Pamela , Robin L. Thompson & Gabriella Vigliocco
    2010 Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology1. 1–15. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227 [Google Scholar]
  20. Sandler, Wendy
    2005 An overview of sign language linguistics. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd ed., 328–338. Oxford: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Sandler, Wendy , Irit Meir , Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff
    2005 The emergence of grammar: Systematic structure in a new language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS)102(7). 2661–2665. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0405448102
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0405448102 [Google Scholar]
  22. Sandler, Wendy
    2010 Prosody and syntax in sign languages. Transactions of the Philological Society108. 298–328. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2010.01242.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2010.01242.x [Google Scholar]
  23. Sandler, Wendy , Irit Meir , Svetlana Dachkovsky , Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff
    2011 The emergence of complexity in prosody and syntax. Lingua121(13). 2014–2033. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.05.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.05.007 [Google Scholar]
  24. Senghas, Ann
    1995Children’s contribution to the birth of Nicaraguan Sign Language. Cambridge, MA: MITPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Senghas, Ann , Sotaro Kita & Aslı Özyürek
    2004 Children creating core properties of language: Evidence from an emerging sign language in Nicaragua. Science305. 1779–1782. doi: 10.1126/science.1100199
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1100199 [Google Scholar]
  26. Senghas, Ann , Marie Coppola , Elissa Newport , Ted Supalla
    1997 Argument structure in Nicaraguan Sign Language: the emergence of grammatical devices. In Elizabeth Hughes , Mary Hughes & Annabel Greenhill (eds.), Proceedings of the Boston University conference on language development (BUCLD), 550–561. Boston, MA: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Taub, Sarah F.
    2000 Iconicity in American Sign Language: Concrete and metaphorical applications. Spatial Cognition and Computation2(1). 31–50. doi: 10.1023/A:1011440231221
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011440231221 [Google Scholar]
  28. Taub, Sarah. F.
    2001Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511509629
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511509629 [Google Scholar]
  29. Woll, Bencie , Rachel Sutton-Spence & Frances Elton
    2001 Multilingualism: the global approach to sign language. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), The sociolinguistics of sign languages, 8–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511612824.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612824.004 [Google Scholar]
  30. Zeshan, Ulrike
    (ed.) 2006Interrogative and negative constructions in sign languages. Nijmegen: Ishara Press. doi: 10.26530/OAPEN_453832
    https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_453832 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sll.20.1.04min
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/sll.20.1.04min
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error