Sign language research in Ghana: An overview of indigenous and foreign-based sign languages

Perspectives on the Sign Language Factor in Sub-Saharan Africa:Challenges of Sustainability Sam Lutalo-Kiingi and Goedele A. M. De Clerck In the present chapter of Sign Language, Equal Opportunities, and Sustainable Development (De Clerck & Paul, 2016), we illuminate Africa's enormous cultural and linguistic diversity: A third of the world's living spoken languages are used in Africa, which means that, on average, 40 or more spoken languages are used in each country on the continent. Much as Wolff (2013) has articulated the notion of the "language factor," we propose to formulate the sign language factor to illuminate hierarchies in the use of national and indigenous sign languages versus "official languages" in Sub-Saharan Africa. Wolff (2013) emphasizes the impact of language ownership on power relations: Assigning lower status to mother tongues relative to "official languages" associated with colonialism diminishes the prospects of success of educational systems in African nations. This asymmetric relationship is due to "widely spread ignorance concerning the role of the 'Language Factor' for sociocultural modernization and economic development" (p. 13). The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, endorsed in 2015, includes 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for the promotion of equality and social justice. Drawing on documentation of linguistic, social, cultural, and educational practices of deaf people and sign language communities on the African continent, here we aim to work toward an understanding of the sign language factor and its impact on development. We follow Wolff's stance in highlighting the role of the sign language factor in overall achievement of the SDGs, as well as the role of African spoken/written and signed languages in achieving "lifelong learning opportunities" and "inclusive and equitable quality education," as formulated in the fourth goal. Research on African sign languages did not begin in earnest until the 1990s, when lexicographic projects were undertaken at universities in Kenya (Akach, 1991) and South Africa (Penn, Ogilvy-Foreman, Simmons, & Anderson-Forbes, 1993). In the meantime, many dictionaries have been published, and Wallin, Lule, Lutalo-Kiingi, and Busingye (2006) have conducted corpus-based lexicographic research in Uganda.1 Research into the phonological structure of sign languages has been undertaken, for example, on Kenyan Sign Language (KSL; H. E. Morgan & Mayberry, 2009) and Ugandan Sign Language (UgSL; Nyst, 1999).2 Lexicographic, phonological, and morphological research has been done on Hausa Sign Language, a village sign language used in Nigeria (Schmaling, 2001). Other village languages that have begun to be described are Adamorobe Sign Language in Ghana (Nyst, 2007), Dogon Sign Language in Mali (Nyst, 2012), and Extreme North Cameroon Sign Language in Cameroon (Lutalo-Kiingi & De Clerck, 2015b). The development of urban deaf communities in Africa has been tied to the establishment of schools for deaf children, which occurred mainly in the "development" period after World War II. Schools often adopted the philosophy and sign language of the founding and supporting country (Barcham, 1998), a practice that explains the contact between African sign languages and dominant Western sign languages, such as American Sign Language (ASL) [End Page 47] and Langue des Signes Française (LSF). The importation of Western sign languages into African educational institutions has raised a threat to African sign languages; "national" African sign languages have also influenced indigenous sign languages. These processes have sometimes precipitated a shift in a community's language use—for example, replacement of an indigenous sign language with a dominant national or Western sign language (Adam, 2012). The concept of "linguistic colonialism" has been applied to describe oppression of national and indigenous sign languages (Adam, 2012; Jokinen, 2003; Reagan, 2010; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2008). Development Cooperation and Partnership With Sign Language Communities in Sub-Saharan Africa In the present chapter, we take a critical stance toward development. Because multiple actors, institutions, and knowledge systems are involved and may be interrelated, this stance understands "development encounters as dynamic interfaces involving multiple acts of brokerage and translation" (Crewe & Axelby, 2013, p. 17). This view is also critical of notions that are often used in development frameworks, such as "partnerships" and the hierarchization of knowledge. Governments, national and international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), universities, the private sector, urban and rural deaf/sign language communities, and national associations of the deaf (NADs...

This book unites the work of both anthropologists and linguists who have conducted fieldwork in rural signing communities around the globe. In most cases, these signing communities have emerged in response to a high inci-dence of (often hereditary) deafness. In contrast to the national sign languages used in urban deaf communities, these indigenous sign languages are typi-cally shared between deaf and hearing community members, thus facilitating a high degree of integration between deaf and hearing individuals. This volume represents the largest collection of comparative work across such “deaf villages” to date. There have been sporadic publications on these communities over the past few decades (see for instance Kakumasu, 1968; Washabaugh, 1979; Groce, 1985), but the chapters in this volume constitute the first extensive compila-tion of academic papers regarding these signing varieties and the communi-ties in which they have emerged, from both anthropological and linguistic perspectives. Moreover, for some of the signing varieties discussed here, this is the first printed publication to appear (see the community sketches by Dikyuva; Lanesman & Meir, and Panda in Part II of this volume). All known village sign languages are endangered, usually because of pressure from larger urban sign languages, and some have died out already. Ironically, it is often the success of the larger sign language communities in urban centres, their recognition and subsequent spread, which leads to the endangerment of these small minority sign languages. For this reason the book also addresses this specific type of language endangerment, documen-tation strategies, and other ethical issues.The sections below serve as an introduction to the demographic, socio-cultural, and linguistic diversity that is represented in this book. Results from the chapters of this volume are contextualised by describing some common-alities across the various sites and languages, as well as, most importantly, highlighting the unique findings reported in each of them.

This article examines the linguistic status and potential for revitalization of American Indian Sign Language (AISL), which is considered an endangered language variety. It reports recent findings from the first documentary linguistics fieldwork carried out in over fifty years to focus on the AISL variety, which has been learned and used as a primary or secondary language among members of some American Indian communities since the eighteenth century and possibly earlier. AISL has been maintained over the past several generations chiefly by tribal elders and these efforts have been buoyed by deaf tribal members who have acquired it as a fluent means of communication within their own native communities. While research continues to identify different AISL dialects and the number of remaining native signers, reportedly hundreds of North American Indians still use and understand AISL to varying degrees of proficiency and mutual intelligibility. The AISL variety has been transmitted for many generations and used internationally among dozens of American Indian nations of the United States and Canada; today, representing mainly Algonquian and Siouan language families. Up to now, both deaf and hearing tribal members have served a vital role in the development and transmission of indigenous sign language. Hence, it has been well documented that American indigenous sign language served a wide variety of discourse functions and purposes—ranging from in-group (shared within a single tribe or family) to international communication (shared between different Indian tribes and nations). The article also highlights how documentary linguistics contributes to language preservation and revitalization.

Reviewed by: Sign Language in Action by Jemina Napier and Lorraine Leeson Wanette Reynolds (bio) Sign Language in Action, by Jemina Napier and Lorraine Leeson ( London: Palgrave, 2016, softcover, 339 pages, $39.99, ISBN: 978-1-137-30976-1) Sign Language in Action by Jemina Napier and Lorraine Leeson uniquely charts the field of applied sign language linguistics. This impressive book provides readers with a comprehensive examination of applied sign language linguistics research informed by authors' extensive experience and expertise as sign language interpreters, researchers, and educators. This unprecedented book draws from numerous fields that fall under the umbrella of applied sign language linguistics and is sure to become an essential reader for researchers, educators, and professionals, as well as students of sign language linguistics, sign language interpreting, sign language instruction, Deaf studies, and Deaf education. In chapter 1, the authors provide an introduction that establishes the aim of the book, their intended audiences, and meaning of the title of the book; additionally, the chapter includes a refreshing discussion about the authors' subjectivity, position, and goals as people who can hear working within the field of applied sign language linguistics. They bring an ethnographic approach to this self-examination, emphasizing a strong philosophy of collaboration with the Deaf community, yet at the same time recognizing the privileges that come with being a person who can hear. Subsequent chapters are organized into four main parts. Part 1 lays out key concepts and research issues in chapters 2 and 3; part 2 delves into practical application in chapters 4, 5, and 6; part 3 details research into applied sign linguistics in chapter 7; and part 4 concludes the book with further resources in the field of applied sign language [End Page 666] linguistics in chapter 8. Throughout the book, boxed sections are categorized into case studies, concepts, quotes, and examples. These sections breathe life into concepts found in each chapter, and are sourced from various journal and book publications as well as quotes from websites and self-reports. Chapter 2 provides the background necessary to achieve the title of the chapter, "Understanding Applied Sign Linguistics," by providing a sociocultural perspective to the history of sign languages and deaf communities, and the development of Deaf studies, sign language linguistics, and ultimately to applied sign language linguistics. Chapter 3, "Sign Language in Action," or sign language in use, delves into identity, particularly the relationship between deaf identities and sign language throughout time. The authors also note that deaf communities are comprised of deaf and hearing people who use a sign language and adopt the term signing communities proposed by Bahan and Nash (1995). Although this definition expands the population of study to include hearing people, the authors also recognize further distinctions between those who are Deaf parented or Codas and those who learned a sign language as adults. Contextually, this opens up a wider discussion of signing communities, such as Gallaudet University, and complex relationships of belonging including hearing and deaf interlopers. Using language attitudes as a springboard, current sign language policy and planning is examined internationally in the areas of sign language status and recognition, corpus planning, and educational sign language planning. Chapter 4, "Learning and Teaching Sign Languages," is the first chapter that delves into practical applications. Topics are couched in the context of transmission and detail first and second language acquisition of a sign language, who is a native signer including Deaf and Codas, and non-native deaf signers who acquire a sign language later in life. The second main section of the chapter synthesizes what is currently known about teaching sign languages and the characteristics of successful second language learners of a language in a different modality (i.e., a sign language). The last section reviews current sign language teaching approaches and curricula, evaluations and assessments of sign language learning, and the ways in which efforts are aligned with foreign language teaching. The authors suggest the adoption of [End Page 667] guidelines for foreign language teaching such as the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) (Noijons et al., 2011) be adopted, with such efforts already underway in Europe. They also point out that further research...

African languages have played an important role in the development of linguistic theory but their role in the fields of historical linguistics and linguistic typology has been less prominent. Africa’s linguistic diversity has been long underestimated given the dominance of the four-family model proposed by Joseph Greenberg. Criticism of this model has long held among specialists in some of Africa’s smaller and lesser-known language families, but has only recently become more widely acknowledged among linguists. Archaeologists, geneticists, and others continue to model African prehistory based on African linguistic classifications, which are outdated and which have failed to withstand scrutiny. This teaching and learning guide suggests a program to train scholars in recognizing and evaluating the standards by which various African language classifications have been made. Africa’s linguistic diversity will be shown to be far greater than what is suggested by the four-family model.

Sign language identification and recognition technique is composed by the gesture images detection and the hand gestures recognition. Gesture images detection is to locate the image part of palm and fingers from the captured pictures, and rotating them to the appropriate gesture posture. Both of them are the important pre-processing for sign language identification and recognition. Lose them, the correctness rate of the sign language recognition algorithms will be dropped down to an unacceptable level. This paper presents novel processing algorithms for the gesture images detection and recognition. In the detection process, it rotates an askew gesture to right position, and to delete the elbow and forearm parts from the captured pictures. In the recognition process, it includes two phases with the model construction and the sign language identification. In the model construction phase, the static hand gesture of sign language is constructed by the Gaussian mixture model, and the unknown gesture image is identified by Gaussian model match. Based on this presented static sign language detection and recognition algorithms, the correct recognition rate is about 94% in average.

Abstract: Sign language is an essential means of communication for deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. However, unlike spoken languages which have a universal language, every country has its own native sign language. In India, the Indian Sign Language (ISL) is used. This survey aims to provide an overview of the recognition and translation of essential Indian sign language. While significant research has been conducted in American Sign Language (ASL), the same cannot be said for Indian Sign Language due to its unique characteristics. The proposed method focuses on designing a tool for translating ISL hand gestures to help the deaf-mute community convey their ideas. A self-created ISL dataset was used to train the model for gesture recognition. The literature contains a plethora of methods for extracting features and classifying sign language, with a majority of them utilizing machine learning techniques. However, this article proposes the adoption of a deep learning method by designing a Convolution Neural Network (CNN) model for the purpose of extracting sign language features and recognizing them accurately. This CNN model is specifically designed to identify complex patterns in the data and use them to efficiently recognize sign language features. By adopting this approach, it is expected that the recognition of sign language will improve significantly, providing a more effective means of communication for the deaf and hard-of-hearing community.

ABSTRACTIn this paper, we investigate the choice of English as a home language in Ghana, a multilingual nation where 81 languages are spoken by a population of about 27 million people. In the past, while English was reserved as the de facto language of official domains, e.g., government business and education, Ghanaian languages were used in informal domains such as homes, markets and churches. Recent research and observations show a gradual shift from the use of indigenous languages in some informal domains to the use of the English language, especially in urban centres. This study uses audio-recordings, questionnaires and observations to gather data from 20 homes from 2 geographically and socio-economically distinct urban communities in Accra. The findings of the study show that economic status, age, inter-ethnic marriages and educational background are the main factors influencing the choice of English as a home language in urban Ghana. Other factors, such as the media, the language in education policies and the use of the internet, also play a role in the use of English in Ghanaian homes.

This paper examines the impact of nationalism on the linguistic rights of Deaf communities. In exploring the subtle hegemony of nationalism in relation to linguistic minorities, the paper discusses the impact of nationalisms on sign languages from two perspectives and in two contrasting situations. First, the paper examines the impact of nationalism on the recognition and promotion of natural sign languages. Second, it examines a particularly potent form of linguistic imperialism as the dominant linguistic forces seek not only to destroy minority languages but to transform existing minority linguistic processes to conform with the form and content of the national language, through the development and promotion of manually coded versions of national spoken and written languages in formal education. These issues are examined in relation to the nationalisms and indigenous sign languages of Australia and Indonesia.

A way of communication on an equal footing with oral and written speech is sign language. Oral speech is a common way of communication, written speech has, with the development of information technologies, been taking up more and more space. In a parallel with them, communication can also take place through sign language, which is, to deaf people, as well as to all those who use it, a natural, simple and easy way to communicate. Relationship towards sign language has changed significantly throughout history from acceptance and isolated use, to complete rejection, and then to encouraging its adoption and emphasizing its importance for the cognitive, emotional, educational, social, and general development of deaf children. Serbian Sign Language (SSL) serves deaf people in Serbia as a means for everyday communication, for expressing desires, willingness, for learning, for intellectual discussions, for expressing personal style. Although the standardization of the Serbian Sign Language was completed in 2015, even nowadays we may still find certain gestures of expression varying in different regions. Different countries have different sign languages that are not reciprocally understood in use. They are distinguished by their own grammar (semantics, morphology, and syntax), different from the grammar of spoken languages. The distinguishing and recognition of sign languages in the world has led to changes in the field of education of deaf children. In bilingual schools, children acquire both sign and spoken languages, and teachers know both of the mentioned languages. The importance of sign language in the education of deaf children is emphasized.

We try to present in this paper some questions related to the phonology of the Terena Sign Language. Recently recognized as an autonomous language (SOARES, 2018), it presents clear differences with LIBRAS, as will be pointed out. Used by deaf people in the Terena community of MatoGrosso do Sul, as well as any sign language, it does not constitute a transposition of the oral language terena for signs. We will also present some of the guidelines that we follow in our fieldwork methodology, which we have built.From this methodology we have been able to find minimal pairs and phonemes in the sign language. With this, we intend to contribute to the knowledge and recognition of sign languages, especially the indigenous sign languages of Brazil.

Sign language is intentionally designed to allow deaf and dumb communities to convey messages and to connect with society. Unfortunately, learning and practicing sign language is not common among society; hence, this study developed a sign language recognition prototype using the Leap Motion Controller (LMC). Many existing studies have proposed methods for incomplete sign language recognition, whereas this study aimed for full American Sign Language (ASL) recognition, which consists of 26 letters and 10 digits. Most of the ASL letters are static (no movement), but certain ASL letters are dynamic (they require certain movements). Thus, this study also aimed to extract features from finger and hand motions to differentiate between the static and dynamic gestures. The experimental results revealed that the sign language recognition rates for the 26 letters using a support vector machine (SVM) and a deep neural network (DNN) are 80.30% and 93.81%, respectively. Meanwhile, the recognition rates for a combination of 26 letters and 10 digits are slightly lower, approximately 72.79% for the SVM and 88.79% for the DNN. As a result, the sign language recognition system has great potential for reducing the gap between deaf and dumb communities and others. The proposed prototype could also serve as an interpreter for the deaf and dumb in everyday life in service sectors, such as at the bank or post office.

Reviewed by: The Linguistics of Sign Languages: An Introduction ed. by Anne Baker, et al. Bencie Woll (bio) The Linguistics of Sign Languages: An Introduction, edited by Anne Baker, Beppie van den Bogaerde, Roland Pfau, and Trude Schermer (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2016, 378pages, hardbound [$149; ISBN: 9789027212306] and paperback [$54; ISBN: 9789027212313]) This book and its companion volume (A Concise Lexicon for Sign Linguistics, by Nijen Twilhaar and Beppie van den Bogaerde [Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2016]) are designed to serve as introductory textbooks to the linguistic study of sign languages. The Linguistics of Sign Languages is intended primarily for students of linguistics or those with some background in the field. In that respect it is unique. Introductory linguistics textbooks often include only brief references to sign languages (and sometimes with a focus on research on apes). Textbooks designed for students of specific sign languages, on the other hand, concentrate mainly on a single sign language, such as ASL. Thus this book differs from existing linguistics textbooks on sign languages, which are designed chiefly for students in the field. The Linguistics of Sign Languages focuses on typology: similarities and differences among sign languages and between signed and spoken language. Each chapter is written by one or more of the authors, together with other sign language researchers in the Netherlands. Each chapter is followed by a summary, a “test yourself ” section (e.g., in chapter 1, “What is the difference between a gesture and a sign?”), an “assignments” section (e.g., in chapter 4, “Construct some short conversations in a sign language that you know that violate the maxims of quantity, quality, and relevance. Present these conversations to others, if possible, in your group and have them work out which maxims are violated.”), and a “references and further reading” section, which summarizes research related to the chapter topic. There is also an [End Page 519] associated website (https://benjamins.com/sites/z.199), which provides brief answers to the assignments, video clips of signed examples, a list of Web resources, and a number of references. The “test yourself ” and “assignments” sections will be useful to those who are teaching from this book. The website is a welcome innovation, but it contains some infelicities, which I address later. The book comprises fourteen chapters, which are arranged in a somewhat unusual order for an introductory text: Topics such as acquisition and psycholinguistic processing precede any detailed description of sign language structure. Chapter 1, Sign Languages as Natural Languages, introduces sign language, sign languages, and their communities of users. Chapter 2, Psycholinguistics, includes a brief discussion of sign language and the brain and reviews the research studies on sign language production and comprehension. Chapter 3 discusses sign language acquisition in children, and chapter 4 deals with inter action and discourse. The next seven chapters cover the major linguistic areas: Chapter 5, constituents and word classes; chapter 6 and chapter 7, the syntax of simple sentences and complex sentences, respectively; chapter 8, the lexicon (including iconicity and lexicography); chapter 9, morphology; chapter 10, phonetics; and chapter 11, phonology. The final three chapters deal with sign language in its contexts of use. Chapter 12 discusses language variation and standardization, including both linguistic variation and policy issues; and chapter 13 delves into language contact and change. Reflecting the social (as opposed to specifically linguistic) issues surrounding the role of sign languages in the education of deaf children, the final chapter is titled Bilingualism and Deaf Education. Two appendices follow, the first with notational conventions and abbreviations, and the second with two examples of manual alphabets. The book provides a wealth of detail and examples from many different sign languages. No other textbook of sign linguistics encompasses such a broad approach in terms of languages included. Nevertheless, certain issues with regard to content and authorship need to be addressed. The first is that a number of topics of real and current interest and debate either are not included or are treated only in passing. These include the L2 acquisition of sign language, for example, and the active debate on the relationship between language and gesture [End Page 520] in terms of the analysis of pronominals and verbs or of iconicity...

In the past two decades, a wave of campaigns to recognise sign languages have taken place in numerous countries. These campaigns sought official recognition of national sign languages, with the aim of enhancing signers’ social mobility and protecting the vitality of sign languages. These activities differ from a long history of sign language planning from a ‘language as a problem’ approach largely used by educators and policymakers to date. However, the instrumental rights and social mobility obtained as a result have thus far been limited with educational linguistic and language acquisition rights especially lacking. This article identifies two reasons for this situation. First, a view of Sign Language Peoples (SLPs) from a medical perspective has led to confusion about the meaning of linguistic rights for them and led governments to treat sign language planning differently than that for spoken languages. Furthermore, SLPs political participation is hindered by recognition being offered by governments without substantial commitments to financial resources, changes in government practices or greater inclusion of sign languages in public life. One exception to this trend are sign language planning bodies, but even these face challenges in the implementation phase. Going forward, we argue that sign language recognition legislation should centre on deaf communities’ concerns regarding sign language vitality. In addition to a need to ensure acquisition for deaf signers, we contend that while the expansion of hearing (and deaf) new signers can be interpreted in terms of language endangerment it can also be seen as strengthening sign languages’ vitality.

ABSTRACTAmong the focus of language policies addressing sign languages have been efforts to achieve official recognition for various national sign languages, coupled with the recognition of the language rights of d/Deaf people. The recognition of sign languages has most often taken place as a result of lobbying efforts by national Deaf communities, generally with the support of sympathetic hearing supporters. As a rule, efforts to grant official recognition to sign languages are seen as progressive undertakings, but such recognition is almost always grounded both ideologically and epistemologically in misguided views of d/Deaf people. The author provides a distinction between different kinds of language policies concerned with sign languages and suggests that policies granting official recognition to sign languages are fundamentally different in nature from language policies granting such status to spoken languages. The author argues that this difference is due to fundamentally indefensible assumptions about the legitimacy of sign languages as full and complete human languages. Finally, the implications for the language rights of sign language peoples that emerge from this unique nature of language policies for sign languages will be explored.