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,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schembri, Adam, Fenlon, Jordan, Cormier, Kearsy, Johnston, Trevor
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