Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-11T04:11:07.854Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - Quantitative sociolinguistics and sign languages: Implications for sociolinguistic theory

from Part V - Sociolinguistics, contexts and impact

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2016

By
Ceil Lucas  and
Robert Bayley
Edited by
Nikolas Coupland
Ceil Lucas
Affiliation:
Gallaudet University
Robert Bayley
Affiliation:
University of California
Nikolas Coupland
Affiliation:
University of Wales College of Cardiff
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Quantitative sociolinguistics has been part of the language research landscape since the early 1960s, beginning with the work of William Labov in New York and Martha's Vineyard (Labov 1969; 1972a,b). In an early and often-cited study on the raising and centralization of vowels on Martha's Vineyard, Labov (1972b) found that centralization corresponded with certain age groups and with the speaker's orientation towards traditional life on the island. These findings represented one of the earliest uses of quantitative methods for arriving at conclusions about the structure and use of language. The results showed that linguistic variation is not random, that it is quantifiable, and that understanding variation is essential to understanding how language works. Numerous studies in the variationist tradition established by Labov have taught us a great deal about language structure and language change. This chapter focuses on what quantitative sociolinguistics has taught us about variation in sign languages and the implications of that knowledge for sociolinguistic theory and for linguistic theory more generally.

In contrast to the study of variation in spoken languages, the study of variation in sign languages is still in the relatively early stages. The first large-scale study of variation in American Sign Language (ASL) appeared only in 2001 (Lucas et al. 2001b). That study, based on data collected in the mid-1990s in seven areas of the United States, was following by similar studies in Australia and New Zealand (Schembri et al. 2009; McKee et al. 2011), the United Kingdom (Schembri et al. 2013), and Italy (Cardinaletti et al. 2011; Geraci et al. 2011; 2015), as well as by a study of Black ASL, the variety of ASL that developed in the segregated schools of the U.S. South before the civil rights era of the 1960s (McCaskill et al. 2011). Although we have ethnographically oriented studies of smaller signing communities, such as Green's (2014) work on Nepali Sign Language, as well as earlier work involving individuals or small groups of signers (see Patrick and Metzger 1996 for a review), large-scale surveys in several countries have provided the primary insights into the relationship between variation in sign languages and sociolinguistic (and linguistic) theory. We are fully aware of the advantages of recent trends in sociolinguistics that have combined close ethnographic observation with quantitative methods and sometimes focused on marginal members (e.g. Bucholtz 1999; Eckert 2000).

Type
Chapter
Information
Sociolinguistics
Theoretical Debates
 , pp. 349 - 366
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aramburo, A. 1989. Sociolinguistic aspects of the Black Deaf community. In Lucas, C. (ed.), The Sociolinguistics of the Deaf Community. New York: Academic Press, 103–122.Google Scholar
Bayley, R. 2013. The quantitative paradigm. In Chambers, J. K. and Schilling, N. (eds.), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change,. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 85–107.Google Scholar
Bayley, R., Lucas, C., and Rose, M.. 2000. Variation in American Sign Language: The case of DEAF. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4: 81–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayley, R., Schembri, A., and Lucas, C.. 2015. Variation and change in sign languages. In Schembri, A. and Lucas, C. (eds.), Sociolinguistics and Deaf Communities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 61–94.Google Scholar
Brentari, D. 2011. Sign language phonology. In Goldsmith, J., Riggle, J., and Yu, A. C. L. (eds.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory,. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 691–721.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, M. 1999. “Why be normal?” Language and identity practices in a community of nerd girls. Language in Society 28: 203–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burch, S. 2002. Signs of Resistance: American Deaf Cultural History 1900–1942. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Burch, S., and Joyner, H.. 2007. Unspeakable: The Story of Junius Wilson. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, A., Cecchetto, C., and Donati, C. (eds.). 2011. Grammatica, Lessico e Dimensioni di Variazione nella LIS. Milan: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Cecchetto, C. 2012. Sentence types. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., and Woll, B. (eds.), Sign Language: An International Handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 292–315.Google Scholar
Cecchetto, C., Giudice, S., and Mereghetti, E.. 2011. La raccolta del Corpus LIS. In Cardinaletti, A., Cecchetto, C., and Donati, C. (eds.), Grammatica, Lessico e Dimensioni di Variazione nella LIS. Milan: Franco Angeli, 55–70.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Croneberg, C. 1965. Appendix D: Sign language dialects. In Stokoe, W. C., Casterline, D. C., and Croneberg, C. G., A Dictionary of American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok, 313–319.Google Scholar
Doctor, P. V. 1948. Deaf Negroes get a break in education. The Silent Worker, November.
Dryer, M. S. 2011. Position of interrogative phrases in content questions. In Dryer, M. S. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. Available at http://wals.info/chapter/93.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. 2000. Linguistic Variation as Social Practice: The Linguistic Construction of Identity in Belten High. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Emmory, K. 1999. The confluence of space and language in signed languages. In Bloom, P., Peterson, M. A., Nodel, L., and Garrett, M. F. (eds.), Language and Space. Cambridge: MIT Press, 171–209.Google Scholar
Frishberg, N. 1975. Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language 51: 696–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geraci, C., Battaglia, K., Cardinaletti, A., Cecchetto, C., Donati, C., Guiduce, S., and Mereghetti, E.,. 2011. The LIS corpus project: A discussion of sociolinguistic variation in the lexicon. Sign Language Studies 11: 328–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geraci, C, Bayley, R., Cardinaletti, A., Cecchetto, C., and Donati, C.. 2015. Variation in Italian Sign Language (LIS): The case of wh- signs. Linguistics 53: 125–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, E. M. 2014. The nature of signs: Nepal's Deaf society, local sign, and the production of communicative sociality. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Guggenheim, L. 1993. Ethnic variation in ASL: The signing of African Americans and how it is influenced by topic. In Winston, E. (ed.), Communication Forum. Washington, DC: School of Communication, Gallaudet University, 51–76.Google Scholar
Hairston, E., and Smith, L.. 1983. Black and Deaf in America: Are We That Different?Silver Spring, MD: TJ Publishers.Google Scholar
Hazen, K. 2007. The study of variation in historical perspective. In Bayley, R. and Lucas, C. (eds.), Sociolinguistic Variation: Theories, Methods, and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 70–89.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1969. Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45: 715–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. 1972a. Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1972b. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. 1998. Ebonics in American Sign Language: Stylistic variation in African American signers. In Deaf Studies V: Toward Unity and Diversity. Conference Proceedings. Washington, DC: College for Continuing Education, Gallaudet University, 229–240.Google Scholar
Lewis, J., Palmer, C., and Williams, L.. 1995. Existence of and attitudes toward Black variations of sign language. In Byers, L., Chaiken, J., and Mueller, M. (eds.), Communication Forum 1995. Washington, DC: School of Communication, Gallaudet University, 17–48.Google Scholar
Liddell, S., and Johnson, R. E.. 1989. American Sign Language: The phonological base. Sign Language Studies 64: 195–278.Google Scholar
Lucas, C. 1995. Sociolinguistic variation in ASL: The case of DEAF. In Lucas, C. (ed.), Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 3–25.Google Scholar
Lucas, C., Bayley, R., Reed, R., and Wulf, A.. 2001a. Lexical variation in African American and white signing. American Speech 76: 339–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, C., Bayley, R., and Valli, C. 2001b. Sociolinguistic Variation in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCaskill, C., Lucas, C., Bayley, R., and Hill, J.. 2011. The Hidden Treasure of Black ASL: Its History and Structure. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
McKee, D., McKee, R., and Major, G.. 2008. Sociolinguistic variation in NZSL numerals. In Quadros, R. M. de (ed.), Sign Languages: Spinning and Unraveling the Past, Present and Future: Papers from the 9th Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research Conference. Petrópolis, RJ, Brazil: Editora Arara Azul, 296–313.Google Scholar
McKee, R., Schembri, A., McKee, David D., and Johnston, T.. 2011. Variable subject expression in Australian Sign Language and New Zealand Sign Language. Language Variation and Change 23: 375–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metzger, M., and Bahan, B.. 2001. Discourse analysis. In Lucas, C. (ed.), The Sociolinguistics of Sign Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 112–144.Google Scholar
Patrick, P., and Metzger, M.. 1996. Sociolinguistic factors in sign language research. In Arnold, J., Blake, R., Davidson, B., Schwenter, S., and Solomon, J. (eds.), Sociolinguistic Variation: Data, Theory, and Analysis, Selected Papers from NWAV23 at Stanford. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information, 229–242.Google Scholar
Rickford, J. R. 1999. African American Vernacular English: Features, Evolution, Educational Implications. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G. 1990. The grammaticalization of tense and aspect in Tok Pisin and Sranan. Language Variation and Change 2: 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schembri, A., Fenlon, J., Rentelis, R., Reynolds, S., and Cormier, K.. 2013. Building the British Sign Language corpus. Language Documentation and Conservation 7: 136–154.Google Scholar
Schembri, A., McKee, D., McKee, R., Pivac, S., Johnston, T., and Goswell, D.. 2009. Phonological variation and change in Australian and New Zealand sign languages: The location variable. Language Variation and Change 21: 193–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stamp, R., Schembri, A., Fenlon, J., Rentellis, R., Woll, B., and Cormier, K.. 2014. Lexical variation and change in British Sign Language. PLOS One 9, 4: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stokoe, W. C. 1960. Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication system of the American Deaf. Occasional Paper 8. Buffalo: State University of New York Linguistics Department.
Sutton-Spence, R., Woll, B., and Allsop, L.. 1990. Variation and change in fingerspelling in British Sign Language. Language Variation and Change 2: 324–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabak, J. 2006. Significant Gestures: A History of American Sign Language. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W., and Herzog, M.. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, W. P. and Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Directions for Historical Linguistics: A Symposium. Austin: University of Texas Press, 95–188.Google Scholar
Wolfram, W., and Schilling–Estes, N.. 2006. American English: Dialects and Variation,. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. 1976. Black southern signing. Language in Society 5: 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, J., and DeSantis, S.. 1977. Two to one it happens: Dynamic phonology in two sign languages. Sign Language Studies 17: 329–46.Google Scholar
Woodward, J., Erting, C., and Oliver, S.. 1976. Facing and hand(l)ing variation in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 10: 43–52.Google Scholar
Wulf, A., Dudis, P., Bayley, R., and Lucas, C. 2002. Variable subject presence in ASL narratives. Sign Language Studies 3: 54–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×