Cargando…
Sociolinguistic Typology and Sign Languages
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,...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5826323/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29515506 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00200 |
_version_ | 1783302328789499904 |
---|---|
author | Schembri, Adam Fenlon, Jordan Cormier, Kearsy Johnston, Trevor |
author_facet | Schembri, Adam Fenlon, Jordan Cormier, Kearsy Johnston, Trevor |
author_sort | Schembri, Adam |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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., Aronoff et 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5826323 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-58263232018-03-07 Sociolinguistic Typology and Sign Languages Schembri, Adam Fenlon, Jordan Cormier, Kearsy Johnston, Trevor Front Psychol Psychology 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., Aronoff et 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. Frontiers Media S.A. 2018-02-21 /pmc/articles/PMC5826323/ /pubmed/29515506 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00200 Text en Copyright © 2018 Schembri, Fenlon, Cormier and Johnston. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Psychology Schembri, Adam Fenlon, Jordan Cormier, Kearsy Johnston, Trevor Sociolinguistic Typology and Sign Languages |
title | Sociolinguistic Typology and Sign Languages |
title_full | Sociolinguistic Typology and Sign Languages |
title_fullStr | Sociolinguistic Typology and Sign Languages |
title_full_unstemmed | Sociolinguistic Typology and Sign Languages |
title_short | Sociolinguistic Typology and Sign Languages |
title_sort | sociolinguistic typology and sign languages |
topic | Psychology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5826323/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29515506 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00200 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT schembriadam sociolinguistictypologyandsignlanguages AT fenlonjordan sociolinguistictypologyandsignlanguages AT cormierkearsy sociolinguistictypologyandsignlanguages AT johnstontrevor sociolinguistictypologyandsignlanguages |