“Israeli Sign Language [Isr] (A Language of Israel)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

“Israeli Sign Language [isr] (A language of Israel) • Alternate Names: ISL • Population: L2 users: 5,000 (Van Cleve 1986). Including some hearing persons. • Language Status: 5 (Developing). • Dialects: Not derived from and relatively little influenced by other sign languages. No special signs introduced from outside by educators. Minor dialect variation. • Typology: A finger-spelling system developed in 1976. • Language Use: Not all deaf use ISL. Interpreters provided in courts. Some interpretation for college students. Sign language instruction for parents of deaf children. Many sign language classes for hearing people. Committee on national sign language; organization for sign language teachers. Classroom sign language and that used by deaf adults outside are different. • Language Development: Films. TV. Videos. Dictionary. Grammar. • Other Comments: The first deaf school was established in Jerusalem in 1934. Jewish.” Lewis, M. Paul, Gary F. Simons, and Charles D. Fennig (eds.) 2015. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Eighteenth edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com. Related Research Nespor, Marina, and Wendy Sandler 1999. Prosody in Israeli Sign Language. Language and Speech. 42(2-3): 143-176. Lanesman, Sara, and Irit Meir 2012. The Survival of Algerian Jewish Sign Language Alongside Israeli Sign Language in Israel. Sign Languages in Village Communities 4: 153-180. Fuks, Orit 2013. Gradient and Categorically: Handshape's Two Semiotic Dimensions in Israeli Sign Language Discourse. Journal of Pragmatics. Fuks, Orit 2014. The (Non-)random Distribution of Formational Parameters in the Established Lexicon of Israeli Sign Language (ISL). Semiotica: Journal of the International Association for Semiotic Studies 199: 125-157. Meir, Irit 2003. Grammaticalization and Modality: The Emergence of a Case-marked Pronoun in Israeli Sign Language. Journal of Linguistics 39(1): 109-140. Fuks, Orit, and Yishai Tobin 2008. The Signs B and B-bent in Israeli Sign Language According to the Theory of Phonology as Human Behavior. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 22(4-5): 391-400. Last Updated: February 24, 2015 .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Sign Language Typology Series
SIGN LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY SERIES The Sign Language Typology Series is dedicated to the comparative study of sign languages around the world. Individual or collective works that systematically explore typological variation across sign languages are the focus of this series, with particular emphasis on undocumented, underdescribed and endangered sign languages. The scope of the series primarily includes cross-linguistic studies of grammatical domains across a larger or smaller sample of sign languages, but also encompasses the study of individual sign languages from a typological perspective and comparison between signed and spoken languages in terms of language modality, as well as theoretical and methodological contributions to sign language typology. Interrogative and Negative Constructions in Sign Languages Edited by Ulrike Zeshan Sign Language Typology Series No. 1 / Interrogative and negative constructions in sign languages / Ulrike Zeshan (ed.) / Nijmegen: Ishara Press 2006. ISBN-10: 90-8656-001-6 ISBN-13: 978-90-8656-001-1 © Ishara Press Stichting DEF Wundtlaan 1 6525XD Nijmegen The Netherlands Fax: +31-24-3521213 email: [email protected] http://ishara.def-intl.org Cover design: Sibaji Panda Printed in the Netherlands First published 2006 Catalogue copy of this book available at Depot van Nederlandse Publicaties, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Den Haag (www.kb.nl/depot) To the deaf pioneers in developing countries who have inspired all my work Contents Preface........................................................................................................10
[Show full text]
Sign Language Endangerment and Linguistic Diversity Ben Braithwaite
RESEARCH REPORT Sign language endangerment and linguistic diversity Ben Braithwaite University of the West Indies at St. Augustine It has become increasingly clear that current threats to global linguistic diversity are not re - stricted to the loss of spoken languages. Signed languages are vulnerable to familiar patterns of language shift and the global spread of a few influential languages. But the ecologies of signed languages are also affected by genetics, social attitudes toward deafness, educational and public health policies, and a widespread modality chauvinism that views spoken languages as inherently superior or more desirable. This research report reviews what is known about sign language vi - tality and endangerment globally, and considers the responses from communities, governments, and linguists. It is striking how little attention has been paid to sign language vitality, endangerment, and re - vitalization, even as research on signed languages has occupied an increasingly prominent posi - tion in linguistic theory. It is time for linguists from a broader range of backgrounds to consider the causes, consequences, and appropriate responses to current threats to sign language diversity. In doing so, we must articulate more clearly the value of this diversity to the field of linguistics and the responsibilities the field has toward preserving it.* Keywords : language endangerment, language vitality, language documentation, signed languages 1. Introduction. Concerns about sign language endangerment are not new. Almost immediately after the invention of film, the US National Association of the Deaf began producing films to capture American Sign Language (ASL), motivated by a fear within the deaf community that their language was endangered (Schuchman 2004).
[Show full text]
Anastasia Bauer the Use of Signing Space in a Shared Signing Language of Australia Sign Language Typology 5
Anastasia Bauer The Use of Signing Space in a Shared Signing Language of Australia Sign Language Typology 5 Editors Marie Coppola Onno Crasborn Ulrike Zeshan Editorial board Sam Lutalo-Kiingi Irit Meir Ronice Müller de Quadros Roland Pfau Adam Schembri Gladys Tang Erin Wilkinson Jun Hui Yang De Gruyter Mouton · Ishara Press The Use of Signing Space in a Shared Sign Language of Australia by Anastasia Bauer De Gruyter Mouton · Ishara Press ISBN 978-1-61451-733-7 e-ISBN 978-1-61451-547-0 ISSN 2192-5186 e-ISSN 2192-5194 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. ” 2014 Walter de Gruyter, Inc., Boston/Berlin and Ishara Press, Lancaster, United Kingdom Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck Țȍ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com Acknowledgements This book is the revised and edited version of my doctoral dissertation that I defended at the Faculty of Arts and Humanities of the University of Cologne, Germany in January 2013. It is the result of many experiences I have encoun- tered from dozens of remarkable individuals who I wish to acknowledge. First of all, this study would have been simply impossible without its partici- pants. The data that form the basis of this book I owe entirely to my Yolngu family who taught me with patience and care about this wonderful Yolngu language.
[Show full text]
What Sign Language Creation Teaches Us About Language Diane Brentari1∗ and Marie Coppola2,3
Focus Article What sign language creation teaches us about language Diane Brentari1∗ and Marie Coppola2,3 How do languages emerge? What are the necessary ingredients and circumstances that permit new languages to form? Various researchers within the disciplines of primatology, anthropology, psychology, and linguistics have offered different answers to this question depending on their perspective. Language acquisition, language evolution, primate communication, and the study of spoken varieties of pidgin and creoles address these issues, but in this article we describe a relatively new and important area that contributes to our understanding of language creation and emergence. Three types of communication systems that use the hands and body to communicate will be the focus of this article: gesture, homesign systems, and sign languages. The focus of this article is to explain why mapping the path from gesture to homesign to sign language has become an important research topic for understanding language emergence, not only for the ﬁeld of sign languages, but also for language in general. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. How to cite this article: WIREs Cogn Sci 2012. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1212 INTRODUCTION linguistic community, a language model, and a 21st century mind/brain that well-equip the child for this esearchers in a variety of disciplines offer task. When the very ﬁrst languages were created different, mostly partial, answers to the question, R the social and physiological conditions were very ‘What are the stages of language creation?’ Language different. Spoken language pidgin varieties can also creation can refer to any number of phylogenic and shed some light on the question of language creation.
[Show full text]
The Paradox of Sign Language Morphology Author(S): Mark Aronoff, Irit Meir and Wendy Sandler Source: Language, Vol
Linguistic Society of America The Paradox of Sign Language Morphology Author(s): Mark Aronoff, Irit Meir and Wendy Sandler Source: Language, Vol. 81, No. 2 (Jun., 2005), pp. 301-344 Published by: Linguistic Society of America Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4489895 Accessed: 07-02-2019 20:08 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Linguistic Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Language This content downloaded from 129.49.5.35 on Thu, 07 Feb 2019 20:08:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE PARADOX OF SIGN LANGUAGE MORPHOLOGY MARK ARONOFF IRIT MEIR WENDY SANDLER Stony Brook University University of Haifa University of Haifa Sign languages have two strikingly different kinds of morphological structure: sequential and simultaneous. The simultaneous morphology of two unrelated sign languages, American and Israeli Sign Language, is very similar and is largely inflectional, while what little sequential morphology we have found differs significantly and is derivational. We show that at least two pervasive types of inflectional morphology, verb agreement and classifier constructions, are iconi- cally grounded in spatiotemporal cognition, while the sequential patterns can be traced to normal historical development.
[Show full text]
The Roots of Linguistic Organization in a New Language*
The roots of linguistic organization in a new language* Mark Aronoff1, Irit Meir2, Carol Padden3 and Wendy Sandler4 1Stony Brook University / 2University of Haifa / 3University of California San Diego / 4University of Haifa It is possible for a language to emerge with no direct linguistic history or outside linguistic influence. Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language (ABSL) arose about 70 years ago in a small, insular community with a high incidence of profound pre- lingual neurosensory deafness. In ABSL, we have been able to identify the begin- nings of phonology, morphology, syntax, and prosody. The linguistic elements we find in ABSL are not exclusively holistic, nor are they all compositional, but a combination of both. We do not, however, find in ABSL certain features that have been posited as essential even for a proto-language. ABSL has a highly reg- ular syntax as well as word-internal compounding, also highly regular but quite distinct from syntax in its patterns. ABSL, however, has no discernable word-in- ternal structure of the kind observed in more mature sign languages: no spatially organized morphology and no evident duality of phonological patterning. Under the right conditions, it is possible for a language to emerge with no linguis- tic history. Because it arises spontaneously, unfettered by established structural convention, a language of this kind may reveal some of the most fundamental properties of human language. While all known spoken languages are either old or descended from old languages, sign languages used by deaf people do occasionally arise de novo when a number of deaf people are born into a community and, over time, have an opportunity to gather and communicate regularly.1 One cannot extrapolate directly from what we know about present-day new languages to protolanguage.
[Show full text]
Negation in Kata Kolok Grammaticalization Throughout Three Generations of Signers
UNIVERSITEIT VAN AMSTERDAM Graduate School for Humanities Negation in Kata Kolok Grammaticalization throughout three generations of signers Master’s Thesis Hannah Lutzenberger Student number: 10852875 Supervised by: Dr. Roland Pfau Dr. Vadim Kimmelman Dr. Connie de Vos Amsterdam 2017 Abstract (250 words) Although all natural languages have ways of expressing negation, the linguistic realization is subject to typological variation (Dahl 2010; Payne 1985). Signed languages combine manual signs and non-manual elements. This leads to an intriguing dichotomy: While non-manual marker(s) alone are sufficient for negating a proposition in some signed languages (non- manual dominant system), the use of a negative manual sign is required in others (manual dominant system) (Zeshan 2004, 2006). Kata Kolok (KK), a young signing variety used in a Balinese village with a high incidence of congenital deafness (de Vos 2012; Winata et al. 1995), had previously been classified as an extreme example of the latter type: the manual sign NEG functions as the main negator and a negative headshake remains largely unused (Marsaja 2008). Adopting a corpus-based approach, the present study reevaluates this claim. The analysis of intergenerational data of six deaf native KK signers from the KK Corpus (de Vos 2016) reveals that the classification of KK negation is not as straightforward as formerly suggested. Although KK signers make extensive use of NEG, a negative headshake is widespread as well. Furthermore, signers from different generations show disparate tendencies in the use of specific markers. Specifically, the involvement of the manual negator slightly increases over time, and the headshake begins to spread within the youngest generation of signers.
[Show full text]
Title of Your CLS 49 Paper
Wh-questions in the Trinidad and Tobago Signing Community Felicia Bisnath1 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1 Introduction Signing in Trinidad and Tobago is characterised by variation and multilingualism. These properties arise out of the community’s history of deaf education, which began in the early 1940s. In 1975, there was a switch in pedagogical approach from Oralist methods to Total Communication, which introduced contact with American Sign Language (ASL). These two periods are associated with two signing varieties: Trinidad and Tobago Sign Language (TTSL) with the former and Trinidad and Tobago ASL (TTASL) with the latter. The nature of the grammatical differences between these varieties has not been described yet, and they are known, used and mixed by different kinds of signers in different contexts. Additionally, they may both be subsumed under the term “TTSL” by some signers. This paper describes variation in the domain of wh-questions as they are used by three different kinds of consultants: two deaf people who grew up with and without deaf parents and relatives respectively, and a hearing person with deaf parents. Wh- questions have not been described in Trinidad and Tobago signing yet and are typologically valuable because their syntax appears to be a site of modality-based difference. Describing their use in Trinidad and Tobago adds a typological data- point, sheds some light on the nature of variation in Trinidad and Tobago signing and begins to identify similarities and differences between TTSL and TTASL. The structure
[Show full text]
Sign Languages in Contact
INTRO_Sign_Pozos_Gaul_193027 7/30/07 11:19 AM Page 1 Editor’s Introduction: Outlining Considerations for the Study of Signed Language Contact David Quinto-Pozos To my knowledge, this volume represents the ﬁrst book-length collec- tion of various accounts of contact between sign languages, and this brings with it excitement as well as the realization of challenges that lie ahead.1 As many researchers who are interested in language contact might suggest, it is exciting because these chapters contribute to our un- derstanding of the structural and social aspects of contact and how such contact affects language in the visual-gestural modality. They provide us with information about Deaf communities throughout the world, as well as language data that speak to the ways in which contact is manifested in those communities. This global perspective allows us to examine con- tact situations in search of commonalties and recurring patterns. It also enables us to see how some outcomes of contact between sign languages might or might not ﬁt the general patterns of contact that have been demonstrated for spoken languages. Perhaps as a way to balance the ex- citement about this topic, the sobering truth is that we know so little about contact between sign languages. As a result, we are faced with the task of documenting examples of such contact and the challenge of ex- amining the effects of visual meaning creation on linguistic structures that occur in these contact situations. By focusing on this area of inquiry, we stand to gain much knowledge about how language works. The study of language contact among signed languages forces us to carefully consider how the visual-gestural modality of human com- munication influences language birth, development, change, and de- cay or loss from disuse.
[Show full text]
Chapter 2 Sign Language Types
Chapter 2 Sign language types This chapter defines four different sign language types, based on the infor- mation available in the respective sources. Before introducing the types of sign languages, I first report on the diachronic developments in the field of typological sign language research that gave rise to the distinction of the various sign language types. Sign language research started about five decades ago in the United States of America mainly due to the pioneering work of Stokoe (2005 [1960]), Klima and Bellugi (1979), and Poizner, Klima and Bellugi (1987) on American Sign Language (ASL). Gradually linguists in other countries, mainly in Europe, became interested in sign language research and started analyzing European sign languages e.g. British Sign Language (BSL), Swedish Sign Language (SSL), Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT) and German Sign Language (DGS). Most of the in-depth linguistic descrip- tions have been based on Western sign languages. Therefore, it has long been assumed that some fundamental levels of linguistic structure, such as spatial morphology and syntax, operate identically in all sign languages. Recent studies, however, have discovered some important variations in spatial organization in some previously unknown sign languages (Washabaugh, 1986; Nyst, 2007; Marsaja, 2008; Padden, Meir, Aronoff, & Sandler, 2010). In the context of growing interest in non-Western sign languages towards the end of the 1990s and more recently, there have been efforts towards developing a typology of sign languages (Zeshan, 2004ab, 2008, 2011b; Schuit, Baker, & Pfau, 2011). Although it has been repeatedly emphasized in the literature that the sign language research still has too little data on sign languages other than those of national deaf communities, based in Western or Asian cultures (Zeshan, 2008).
[Show full text]
Constraints on Metaphorical Extension of Iconic Forms
Iconicity and metaphor: Constraints on metaphorical extension of iconic forms Irit Meir Language, Volume 86, Number 4, December 2010, pp. 865-896 (Article) Published by Linguistic Society of America For additional information about this article http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/lan/summary/v086/86.4.meir.html Access Provided by Israel Institute of Technology at 01/03/11 3:53PM GMT ICONICITY AND METAPHOR: CONSTRAINTS ON METAPHORICAL EXTENSION OF ICONIC FORMS Irit Meir The University of Haifa Some conceptual metaphors common in spoken languages are infelicitous in sign languages. The explanation suggested in this article is that the iconicity of these signs clashes with the shifts in meaning that take place in these metaphorical extensions. Both iconicity and metaphors are built on mappings of two domains: form and meaning in iconicity, source domain and target do- main in metaphors. Iconic signs that undergo metaphoric extension are therefore subject to both mappings (Taub 2001). When the two mappings do not preserve the same structural correspon- dence, the metaphorical extension is blocked. This restriction is formulated as the DOUBLE- MAPPING CONSTRAINT, which requires multiple mappings to be structure-preserving. The effects of this constraint go beyond explaining possible and impossible metaphors in sign languages. Be- cause of the central role of metaphors in various linguistic processes, constraints on their occur- rence may affect other linguistic structures and processes that are built on these metaphors in both sign and spoken languages.*
[Show full text]
The Kata Kolok Corpus: Documenting a Shared Sign Language
accepted for Sign Language Studies, 16 (2), Winter 2016 Sampling shared sign languages Connie de Vos Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmgen, the Netherlands Abstract This paper addresses some of the theoretical questions, ethical considerations, and methodological decisions that underlie the creation of the Kata Kolok Corpus as well as the Kata Kolok Child Signing Corpus. This discussion is relevant to the formation of prospective sign corpora that aim to capture the various sociolinguistic landscapes in which sign languages, whether rural or urban, may emerge and evolve. Keywords: corpus construction, shared sign languages, linguistic fieldwork, first language acquisition, Kata Kolok 1. Introduction1 Whether stated or implied, the emergence of sign languages has often taken to be directly linked to the establishment of formal deaf education, and other cultural centres where deaf individuals may convene. Over the past ten years, more attention has been given to the emergence of signing varieties in rural and urban areas with a high incidence of deafness, where both deaf and hearing community members form social networks, using visual-gestural forms of communication (Nyst 2012). This latter sociolinguistic category of sign language, being used by both deaf and hearing community members, is known as a shared sign language. Shared signing communities vary in detail with respect to various social factors such as the causes and incidence of deafness, community size, the ratio of deaf and hearing signers, time depth, as well as the socio-cultural construction of deafness (Kisch 2008; Kusters 2010). The linguistic and anthropological documentation and description of shared signing communities are still in their initial stages (Zeshan & de Vos 2012).
[Show full text]