PAPERS ON LANGUAGE STUDIES, SIGN LANGUAGE AND TRANSLATION- DAYA WICKRAMASINGHE (2025)

When a Wh-word is not a Wh-word: The Case of Indian Sign Language

Algebra Universalis, 2005

The Third International Conference on Linguistics in Sri Lanka: Abstracts

This is the abstract volume of the 3rd International Conference on Linguistics in Sri Lanka, held in 2017.

A Sociolinguistic Study of the Use of Indian Sign Language

SMART MOVES JOURNAL IJELLH, 2020

This paper discusses the “Language Use” pattern of ISL by the deaf community. This paper aims to understand the vitality of sign language within the community and to foresee whether ISL is likely to be maintained in coming future. As proposed by Boehm (1997:67), “The choices people make in regard to language use reflect trend towards either language maintenance and language shift. To some extent, this reveals the vitality of the language. Fase et al. (1992:6) says that, “It has been commonly found that when the mother tongue of the minority language remains dominant in communication within the ethnic group, it can be said that mother tongue has been maintained.” This survey also deals with the major issue faced by the deaf community in this speech dominant society, which is huge “communication gap” with the majority speaking people of our society.

North East Indian Linguistics Volume 3

2011. New Delhi, Cambridge University Press India (Hardcover, 253 + xxii pp.; ISBN: 978-81-7596-793-9), 2011

Review of North East Indian Linguistics: Volume 3. Gwendolyn Hyslop, Stephen Morey, and Mark W. Post, eds. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press India Pvt. Ltd. 2011

European Bulletin of Himalayan Research, 2012

Urban and rural sign language in India

Language in Society, 1991

A comparison is presented of Indian urban and rural sign languages of the deaf. The structures of both languages are designed for efficient communication but have developed differently in response to different sociolinguistic environments. The urban form transmits information primarily by means of appeal to a shared linguistic code; the rural form mainly by appeal to communal nonlinguistic knowledge. Both languages employ effective and appropriate means given their environments. The relationship between language usage and structure is explored. (Sign language, deafness, India) Hymes (1972, 1974) argued that language must be studied within the framework of its social context and function; that the divorce of language structure from language use enables linguists to build models of grammar but not of language. In this article, I explore the relationship of structure and use in two languages of the deaf in India. In urban India, a unified and relatively standardized language is used by members of the educated, middle-class deaf community. The rural deaf have no exposure to the urban form but employ what the urban deaf call rustic sign. I use the terms Urban Indian Sign Language (UISL) and Rural Indian Sign Language (RISL) to distinguish these two languages. I propose here that structural differences between UISL and RISL result from differences in the sociolinguistic environments in which they are embedded and in the uses to which they are put. Studies of local and regional sign languages have become relatively frequent in recent years. Often, these languages are described in terms that suggest a quasi-linguistic status. They are referred to as "context-dependent" (Washabaugh, Woodward, & DeSantis I978) and "iconic" (Brito I984; Kuschel I973; Washabaugh I980); their signs are "weakly coded" (Washabaugh I980) and "realistic" (Kuschel I973); and they are characterized by "variability of expression" (Washabaugh I980) and little conventionality (Brito I984). These descriptions pose problems for sign language researchers who have tried to portray sign languages as similar to oral languages. This article explores some reasons for the various features that typify regional or ? I99I Cambridge University Press 0047-4045/91 $5.00 + .00 37 JILL JEPSON local sign languages and some of the sociolinguistic factors that go into their making. The approach I take here is to compare UISL and RISL along two dimensions. First, I consider structural differences between the two systems with reference to syntactic complexity, size of lexicon, standardization of sign formation, degree of iconicity, use of indexical signs and of pantomime, and the extent to which signs derive from the gestural system of the hearing community. In addition, I consider the relationship of these structural differences to the notion of context dependence. I then present a sociolinguistic comparison, considering the roles UISL and RISL play in their respective speech communities. This article argues that the structural differences between these two sign languages stem from the fact that they convey information by appealing to different types of shared knowledge. Whereas UISL appeals primarily to linguistic conventions shared by members of the sign community, RISL makes greater use of communal nonlinguistic knowledge of the cultural and physical environment. UISL transmits information mainly by way of a syntactic code and a conventional, standardized lexicon. RISL does so primarily by referring to the nonlinguistic world through the use of iconic and indexic signs, pantomime, and signs based on commonly used gestures of the village community. These differences between UISL and RISL arise from the sociolinguistic environments in which the two languages function; that is, from differences in the nature of their respective sign communities, in the functions they perform, in the structure of the sign events in which they are typically employed, and in the means by which they are acquired. Washabaugh (I98I) argued that current difficulties in analyzing sign language derive from the assumption that the chief goal of communication is the transfer of information. He suggested that it is because of this traditional view that the context-dependent, iconic, and realistic qualities of sign languages are viewed as "raw" and "unsophisticated" (245). He proposed the alternative view that communication serves mainly as a means of regulating oneself and others by way of "exchange of meaning" and "manipulation of presence" (246). His chief reason for proposing this view of communication is that it provides an explanation for the differences between sign and oral languages that does not relegate the former to an inferior status. This article offers an alternative proposal. The argument presented here is based on the traditional assumption that Washabaugh eschewed: that a major goal of any system of communication is to maximize the effectiveness of information transfer (Whitney I875). The means by which a language achieves that goal depends on a variety of factors, including the nature of the community that employs it, the communicative tasks to which it is put, the structure of the individual sign acts in which it typically occurs, and the means by which it is acquired.

Two Sign Languages in a Single Village in India

Sign Language Studies, 1991

North East Indian Linguistics Volume 5

2013. New Delhi, Cambridge University Press India (Hardcover, 303 + xvii pp.; ISBN: 978-93-8226-472-9)

All rights reserved. No reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press India Pvt. Ltd., subject to statutory exception and to the provision of relevant collective licensing agreements. Cambridge University Press India Pvt. Ltd. has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

Dash: Language and Linguistics: Heritage, New Delhi (2011)

Heritage Publishers, New Delhi, India, 2011

This introductory book covers almost all the major areas, domains, issues and aspects of general descriptive linguistics in a very lucid and simplified manner so that anyone interested in language and linguistics can easily gather some ideas about the discipline. The importance of the book lies in its elaborate presentation of information and data for general academic and referential purposes. The book is the first of its kind that tries to furnish new information and findings that are hardly presented before the students and scholars willing to know more about the general aspects of natural languages and linguistics. Since the level of the book is a general one, it does not include the findings of research and investigation, which are more complex in nature and which ask for specialized knowledge of the discipline as traced among the scholars baptized in the discipline called Linguistics. Rather, in simple term, this book includes simple descriptions and analyses of some notable findings and studies on the general areas of linguistics which can easily be liked by students of linguistics and general readers. In the present global scenario, there is hardly any book on general and descriptive linguistics which can be greatly useful for the undergraduate and postgraduate students of Linguistics of colleges and universities of India and other countries. This book is primarily written to address the needs of these learners. Thus, the target readers of this book are undergraduate and postgraduate students of Linguistics in India and similar countries. This book will also be useful for general readers who are interested in various aspects and properties of natural languages and linguistics. It can be highly referential for scholars and researchers working in various fields of general linguistics (e.g., descriptive linguistics, features of language, origin of language, branches of linguistics, functions of language, human and non-human communication, etc.). The students and teachers of Linguistics can use this book as a reference-cum-text book in classroom teaching.

A Grammar Sketch of Southern Sinama Language

International journal of linguistics studies, 2023

This study aimed to sketch the grammar of the Southern Sinama language, particularly that of the Simunul variety. The language is spoken in the island municipality of Simunul in Tawi-Tawi, Philippines, by some 34,000 people. This study employed a qualitative research method utilizing the descriptive design. Drawn from the elicited data, the description sketches the language in three different levels: phonology, morphology, and syntax. In the language phonology, significant features include 24 phonemes: 17 consonants and seven vowels; no consonant cluster occurs within syllable; word-initially, [m], [n], and [l] can occur as phonetically lengthened to the extent that they form a geminate cluster; and the replacement of segment is evident through nasal fusion. In language morphology, noted features comprise affixes which interrelate with other structures of the language, such as aspect, mood, and the voice system of the verbs, which in consequence, affects the meaning of the utterance. In terms of syntax, Southern Sinama is a head marking language with VSO word order whose clause structures encompass one to three arguments (i.e. actor, object, and benefactor).