"Ungraceful, Repulsive, Difficult to Comprehend": Sociolinguistic Consideration of Shifts in Signed Languages

Abstract

Ungraceful, Repulsive, Difficult to Comprehend : Sociolinguistic Consideration of Shifts in Signed Graham H. Turner Languages Department of Education University of Central Lancashire, & Social Science, UK INTRODUCTION In two earlier papers (Turner, 1995; 1996), I have outlined a case for the faith in the durability of possible relocation of the notion of contact signing^ within the broad conceptual field of language shift. Deaf people have tremendous signed languages (Taylor Bishop, 1991; Lee, 1992), though the odds against if them can seem insurmountable (Lane, 1992). However, many, languages exist in a not all, signed kind of linguistic 'twilight zone', in the shadow of more powerful and widely-used spoken/written languages. The longer-term impact of the mixed' linguistic systems that have been seen (for instance, by Lucas & Valli, 1992 and by Schermer, 1990) relatively little to arise in these circumstances has been the focus of reflection. Though signing as a type of linguistic activity may endure, I have argued that Deaf people may consider it prudent to maintain a degree of concern as to the long-term prospects for their traditional or heritage signed languages. A possible drawing upon the raise, framework for linguistic policy-making in this connection, work of Joshua Fishman (1991), is outlined in Turner (1995). I In the present paper. wish to put under the microscope the very impulse to even as a possible matter of concern, the issue of linguistic shift in a signed language under the influence of a spoken language. The view that changing patterns within signed languages are unwelcome is not new, but its articulation has to date been largely on aesthetic and intuitive grounds. Back in Dr James L. Smith issued a warning in such terms to Deaf people to those at the seventh convention of the US National Association of the Deaf: The enemies of sign language are not confined are in who decry it and call for its abolition entirely. Its most dangerous enemies the camp of its friends, in the persons of those who maltreat it and abuse it by The sign language, properly used, it misuse. is a language of grace, beauty, power. But through careless or ignorant use to comprehend (cited may become ungraceful, repulsive, difficult by Gannon, 98 p. 363). This may not be the limit of the grounds for concern. The question, then, corollary: is this: Languages change - so what? The first Can the result of change ever legitimately influence the I answer? In order to explore this question, the structure of this paper will be as follows. Firstly in the background section will sketch in broad terms some of the research Issues in Applied Linguistics ISSN 1050-4273 Vol. 10 1999, Regents of the University of California No.