Macro and micro-social variation in Asia-Pacific sign languages

Abstract

The volume of research on sign language (SL) variation has grown considerably in recent years but, as in other areas of SL research, there have been comparatively fewer reports from the Asia-Pacific region (Moriarty Harrelson et al., 2016). The region is already known for the extreme diversity of its (spoken) language ecologies (Cunningham, Ingram, & Sumbuk, 2006;Goebel, 2016;Volker, 2015), and it should come as no surprise that this diversity extends to the signed languages of the region.Taken together, the articles in this special issue draw attention to that diversity: perhaps contrary to popular belief, SL practices across the Asia-Pacific region can, and do differ in remarkable ways that strengthen our understanding of language variation. To that end, I begin by highlighting the distinctive sociolinguistic settings and practices covered by this special issue. This is followed by a discussion of macro-and micro-social variation, why this theme is so relevant for SL variation studies, and how it is taken up by the papers that follow. Sociolinguistic diversity in the sign languages of the Asia-Pacific regionSL research has been dominated overwhelmingly by what Mudd et al. (this issue) describe as 'deaf community sign languages' -also referred to as 'national' (Branson & Miller, 1997), 'urban' (Dolman, 1986 and 'macro-community' sign languages (Schembri, Fenlon, Cormier, & Johnston, 2018). More recently, a valuable contribution to the field has been made by studies of a different kind of SL (

Classifications and typologies: Labeling sign languages and signing communities

“…There is a growing trend of documenting the variety and complexity of signing practices in the context of diverse sociolinguistic ecologies in which the practices occur in different parts of the world (Braithwaite, 2019(Braithwaite, , 2020Ergin, 2017;Goico, 2019Goico, , 2020Green, 2014;Hofer, 2017;Horton, 2018;Hou, 2016;Jepsen et al, 2015;Kendon, 2013;Kisch, 2012;Kusters, 2015;Kusters & Sahasrabudhe, 2018;Le Guen et al, 2020;Marsaja, 2008;Moriarty Harrelson, 2017;Neveu, 2019;Nonaka, 2009Nonaka, , 2014Nyst, 2012;Nyst et al, 2012;Palfreyman, 2015Palfreyman, , 2020Polich, 2005;Reed, 2019Reed, , 2020Safar, 2020;Schuit, 2013;Zeshan & de Vos, 2012;inter alia). The signing in question may be classified as sign language, gesture, homesign/homesign system, or some variation of one of those labels such as family sign or local sign, according to the scholar's theoretical views and methodological approaches.…”