Cover not available
Article published In:
Special Issue in Memory of Irit Meir
Edited by Diane Lillo-Martin, Wendy Sandler, Marie Coppola and Rose Stamp
[Sign Language & Linguistics 23:1/2] 2020
► pp. 233–257

Visual foreign accent in an emerging sign language

| University of Haifa
| University of Haifa
| University of Haifa
In the study of sign language phonology, little attention has been paid to the phonetic detail that distinguishes one sign language from another. We approach this issue by studying the foreign accent of signers of a young sign language – Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language (ABSL) – which is in contact with another sign language in the region, Israeli Sign Language (ISL). By comparing ISL signs and sentences produced by ABSL signers with those of ISL signers, we uncover language particular features at a level of detail typically overlooked in sign language research. For example, within signs we find reduced occlusion (lack of contact), and across phrases there is frequent long distance spreading of the nondominant hand. This novel study of an emerging language in a language contact environment provides a model for comparative sign language phonology, and suggests that a community’s signature accent is part of the evolution of a phonological system.
Keywords: foreign accent, sign language, sociophonetics, phonology and phonetics, language emergence, language contact
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Relevant phonological generalizations
    • 2.1The syllable
    • 2.2Constraints and phonological processes
  • 3.Language context and the birth of Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language
  • 4.Accent in speech and sign
    • 4.1Phonological and phonetic basics of foreign accent
    • 4.2Accent in sign languages
  • 5.The ABSL signature accent
    • 5.1Contact with ISL
    • 5.2The ABSL accent data
    • 5.3The ABSL foreign accent within signs
    • 5.4The ABSL foreign accent in connected signing
  • 6.Summary and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.00050.san
References (55)
References
Al-Fityani, Kinda & Carol Padden. 2010 Sign language geography in the Arab world. In Diane Brentari (Ed.), Sign languages: A Cambridge survey, 433–450. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Archangeli, Diana & Douglas Pulleyblank. 1994. Grounded phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark, Irit Meir, Carol Padden & Wendy Sandler. 2004. Morphological universals and the sign language type. In Geert Booj & Jaap van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology, 19–39. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Baker, Charlotte & Carol Padden. 1978. Focusing on the non-manual components of ASL. In Patricia Siple (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language research, 27–57. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Battison, Robbin. 1978. Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane & Laurinda Crossley. 2002. Prosody on the hands and face: Evidence from American Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 5(2). 105–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Browman, Catherine & Louis Goldstein. 1992. Articulatory phonology: An overview. Phonetica 491. 155–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clements, George N. 1985. The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook 21. 225–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corina, David. 1993. To branch or not to branch: Underspecification in ASL handshape contours. In Geoffrey Coulter (Ed.), Phonetics and phonology, Vol 3: Current issues in ASL Phonology, 63–94. San Diego: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulter, Geoffrey. 1982. On the nature of ASL as a monosyllabic language. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Diego, CA.
Dachkovsky, Svetlana, Christina Healy & Wendy Sandler. 2013. Visual intonation in two sign languages. Phonology 30(2). 211–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dachkovsky, Svetlana & Wendy Sandler. 2009. Visual intonation in the prosody of a sign language. Language and Speech 52(2–3). 287–314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Docherty, Gerard J. & Paul Foulkes. 2000. Speaker, speech & knowledge of sounds. In Noel Burton-Roberts, Philip Carr & Gerard J. Docherty (Eds.), Phonological knowledge: Conceptual & empirical issues, 105–129. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer & Katie Drager. 2007. Sociophonetics. Annual Review of Anthropology 361. 89–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles. 1960. The origin of speech. Scientific American 2031. 88–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Israel, Assaf & Wendy Sandler. 2011. Phonological category resolution in a new sign language: A comparative study of handshapes. In Rachel Channon & Harry van der Hulst (Eds.), Formational units in sign languages, 177–202. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaisse, Ellen & Patricia S. Shaw. 1985. On the theory of lexical phonology. Phonology Yearbook 21. 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kastner, Itamar. 2011. Tracing the phonetics of an emerging sign language in the Negev: No phonology or ‘No, phonology!’ Working paper, University of Haifa.Google Scholar
Kisch, Shifra. 2008. The social construction of deafness in a Bedouin community in the Negev. Medical Anthropology 27(3). 283–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klima, Edward & Ursula Bellugi. 1979. The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lanesman, Sara & Irit Meir. 2012. The survival of Algerian Jewish Sign Language alongside Israeli Sign Language in Israel. In Ulrike Zeshan & Connie de Vos (Eds.), Sign languages in village communities: Anthropological and linguistic insights, 153–179. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton & Nijmegen: Ishara Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehiste, Ilse. 1988. Lectures on language contact. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. 2003. Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. & Robert E. Johnson. 1986. American Sign Language compound formation processes, lexicalization, and phonological remnants. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 81, 445–513. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1989. American Sign Language: the phonological base. Sign Language Studies 64(1). 195–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Major, Roy C. 2001. Foreign accent: The ontogeny and phylogeny of second language phonology. London: Lawrence Erlbaum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mandel, Mark. 1977. Iconic devices in American Sign Language. In. Lynn A. Friedman (Ed.), On the other hand, 57–107. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit, Assaf Israel, Wendy Sandler, Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff. 2013. Community structure and language structure. Linguistic Variation 12(2). 247–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit & Wendy Sandler. 2008. A language in space: The story of Israeli Sign Language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
. 2020. Variation and conventionalization in language emergence: A study of two young sign languages of Israel. In Edit Doron, Malka Rappaport Hovav, Yael Reshef & Moshe Taube (Eds.), Linguistic contact, continuity and change in the genesis of Modern Hebrew, 337–363. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Wendy Sandler. 1999. Prosody in Israeli Sign Language. Language and Speech 42(2–3). 143–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Padden, Carol, Irit Meir, Mark Aronoff & Wendy Sandler. 2010. The grammar of space in two new sign languages. In Diane Brentari (Ed.), Sign languages: A Cambridge language survey, 570–592. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2001. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition, and contrast. In Joan Bybee & Paul Hopper (Eds.), Frequency effects and the emergence of linguistic structure, 137–157. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pietraszewski, David & Alex Schwartz. 2014. Evidence that accent is a dimension of social categorization, no a byproduct of coalitional categorization. Evolution and Human Behavior 351. 51–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 1992. Sonority and syllable structure in American Sign Language. Linguistic Inquiry 23(3). 407–442.Google Scholar
Quinto-Pozos, David G. 2008. Sign language contact and interference: ASL and LSM. Language in Society 37(2). 161–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 1989. Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1990. Temporal aspects and ASL phonology. In Susan Fischer & Patricia Siple (Eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research, Vol I: Linguistics, 7–36. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1993. A sonority cycle in American Sign Language. Phonology 10(2). 209–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Cliticization and prosodic words in a sign language. In Tracy Hall & Ursula Kleinhenz (Eds.), Studies on the phonological word, 223–255. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Symbiotic symbolization by hand and mouth in sign language. Semiotica 1741. 241–275.Google Scholar
. 2011. The phonology of movement in sign language. In Mark van Oostendorp, Colin Ewen, Karen Rice & Elizabeth Hume (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, 577–603. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. The phonological organization of sign languages. Language and Linguistics Compass 6/3. 162–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. The challenge of sign language phonology. Annual Review of Linguistics 31. 43–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy, Mark Aronoff, Irit Meir & Carol Padden. 2011. The gradual emergence of phonological form in a new language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29(2). 503–543. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy, Irit Meir, Svetlana Dachkovsky, Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff. 2011. The emergence of complexity in prosody and syntax. Lingua 121(13). 2014–2033. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schembri, Adam & Ceil Lucas (Eds.). 2015. Sociolinguistics and Deaf communities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stokoe, William C. 1960. Sign language structure: an outline of the visual communication systems of the American deaf. Studies in Linguistics: Occasional Papers. Buffalo: University of Buffalo.Google Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie B. 1994. Eyeblinks and ASL phrase structure. Sign Language Studies 841. 221–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. Phonological and prosodic layering of non-manuals in American Sign Language. In Karen Emmorey & Harlan Lane (Eds.), The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, 215–244. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2011. Sign syllables. In Mark van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Karen Rice (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, 1309–1334. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van der Hulst, Harry. 1993. Units in the analysis of signs. Phonology 10(2). 209–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Watkins, Freya, Diar Abdlkarim, Bodo Winter & Robin L. Thompson
2024. Viewing angle matters in British Sign Language processing. Scientific Reports 14:1 DOI logo
Börstell, Carl
2023. Lexical comprehension within and across sign languages of Belgium, China and the Netherlands. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 8:1 DOI logo
Flaherty, Molly, Asha Sato & Simon Kirby
2023. Documenting a Reduction in Signing Space in Nicaraguan Sign Language Using Depth and Motion Capture. Cognitive Science 47:4 DOI logo
Alhuzail, Nuzha Allassad & Miriam Levinger
2022. Social workers’ challenges in working with deaf bedouin service users. Journal of Social Work 22:5 ► pp. 1296 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.