A Sociolinguistic Study of the Use of Indian Sign Language (original) (raw)

Foreign Signs in India and Language Attitudes in the Indian Deaf Community

2020

Initial research on Indian Sign Language (ISL) in 1978 determined that it is indigenous to India and does not have a strong influence from any European sign language or American Sign Language. Despite observable lexical varieties across different states of India, further research in 2000 found that Indian Sign Language has a consistent grammar and is 75% similar throughout all of India. However, the initial documentation of Indian Sign Language was largely conducted by foreigners rather than native users as even now only 5% of deaf Indians receive education. Before the recognition of ISL in 2000, some Indian teachers of the deaf studied American Sign Language and used it in their classrooms. With the first plenary speaker from India participating in the 2019 World Federation of the Deaf Congress, it could be said that the Indian deaf community is now being officially recognized in global deaf community discourse. The primary modes of communication used at international deaf gatherings are almost always International Sign and written English. Additionally, through upgrades in communication and travel technology deaf people in India are now exposed to sign languages online and through interactions with foreign sign language users. This thesis seeks to explore how Indian deaf people may have incorporated American Sign Language and International Sign lexicon into their own way of signing through lexical borrowing and how they feel about American Sign Language and International Sign being used in India. These questions are explored through a quantitative survey, qualitative interviews, and a small sample of lexical analysis. All data were collected during an internship in partnership with the Deaf Enabled Foundation.

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.

Sign Language use as Medium of Instruction: The Case of Mekanissa School for the Deaf

Literatures show sign language is a fully fledged language that can be employed effectively to teach the contents of a curriculum as spoken language. Though the use of sign language in education makes sense educationally, linguistically and psychologically there are many grievances in the practices. In many parts of the world, sign language is seldom used in formal education. On the other hand, when signing is employed, it is either in the form of contact sign language or an artificially constructed manual in which sign codes for a spoken language, mostly. In view of that, this research has attempted to examine sign language use as medium of instruction in primary classes of Mekanissa School for the Deaf. To deal with this, the study employed a case study research technique. The data collected through 20 classroom observations, individual interviews with 7 teachers, 10 students, 10 parents and 3 officials as well as several document analyses. Those data were examined and presented based on their themes in detail following narrative analysis method to achieve the purposes. According to the findings of the study, the Deaf communication approach dominantly employed in primary classes of Mekanissa School for the Deaf is SimCom which is considered as best method by the teachers. Signed Amharic (Manual Codes for Amharic) is the principal MOI, while written and spoken Amharic served in few classroom activities. Unfortunately, the natural EthSL rarely employed as it is in many countries in the world. On the other hand, both the teachers and the students exhibited incompetency to make use of the signed language in the classes besides their unconvinced attitude to utilize the natural sign language as capable instrument of education. The classrooms and their facilities also found to be unsuitable to sign medium. The challenges that hinder the effective utilization identified as they are related to improper proficiency of the teachers, students and the language itself, negative attitude of the users, poor classroom facilitation, material unavailability and lack of clear policies. On the contrary the manualist philosophy the school advocates and sign language training programs of the school appeared to be opportunities for further improvements. Generally, using sign language as MOI has several drawbacks in the cases. However, considering its benefit for Deaf learners, the research suggested to persist on using it along with conducting researches to improve the drawbacks in the practices.

Implementation of Indian Sign Language in educational settings

2005

This article reports on several sub-projects of research and development related to the use of Indian Sign Language in educational settings. In many countries around the world, sign languages are now recognised as the legitimate, full-fledged languages of the deaf communities that use them. In India, the development of sign language resources and their application in educational contexts, is still in its initial stages. The work reported on here, is the first principled and comprehensive effort of establishing educational programmes in Indian Sign Language at a national level. Programmes are of several types: a) Indian Sign Language instruction for hearing people; b) sign language teacher training programmes for deaf people; and c) educational materials for use in schools for the Deaf. The conceptual approach used in the programmes for deaf students is known as bilingual education, which emphasises the acquisition of a first language, Indian Sign Language, alongside the acquisition ...

Sign Language Problem And Solutions For Deaf And Dumb People

Sign languages are natural languages that use different means of expression for communication in everyday life. More particularly, it is the only means of communication for the hearing impaired. Thus, it provides replacement for speech among deaf and mute people. Several research works are going on sign language in order to make the communication between a deaf person and a normal person easy. Examples of some sign languages are the American Sign Language, the British Sign Language, the native Indian Sign Language, the Japanese Sign Language etc. Generally, the semantic meanings of the language components in all these sign languages differ, but there are signs with a universal syntax. For example, a simple gesture with one hand expressing 'hi' or 'goodbye' has the same meaning all over the world and in all forms of sign languages. Sign languages are natural languages that use different means of expression for communication in everyday life. This paper outlines the current status of sign language and the Deaf community in India, focusing on: a)what is sign language b) what the existing problems c) what actions are being undertaken or planned that hopefully will lead to solutions d) Tools that will be used.

Sign Languages and Their Communities Now and in the Future

Sign language research has been conducted for about 50 years. Sign languages and Deaf culture have only been acknowledged for the last 10-25 years. From the end of the 19th century until then, however, sign language communities suffered severe discrimination and marginalisation. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is the recent stage of a paradigm drastically changing towards self-determination and equal rights. Within these positive processes the Deaf communities are confronted with a growing divide between Deaf people in poor countries and those in rich countries as well as with a considerable population change in the latter, mainly due to the overwhelming application of cochlea implants.