Sign Languages in Village Communities

Zeshan, Ulrike; Vos, Connie De

doi:10.1515/9781614511496

Cited by 122 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 24 publications

(32 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We come to this conclusion by analyzing demographic data on the deaf population of Martha’s Vineyard; these data are now available in a variety of electronic and archival records. Our work contributes, we believe, to the growing literatures on village sign languages (e.g., Zeshan & de Vos, 2012 ) and on the sociolinguistic typology ( Trudgill, 2011 ) of signed languages ( Hou & de Vos, 2022 ; Schembri et al., 2018 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Sign language emergence has been examined over a range of scales, from the first-generation homesign systems of isolated deaf children ( Goldin-Meadow & Mylander, 1990 ) to second-generation homesign systems ( Neveu, 2019 ) and family sign languages ( Horton, 2022 ; Hou, 2016 ), to larger village sign languages of varying time depths and community sizes (see the contributions in Zeshan & de Vos, 2012 ; de Vos & Nyst, 2018 ). The emergence of new national sign languages has also been tracked, both in Nicaragua ( Polich, 2005 ; Senghas & Coppola, 2001 ) and in Israel ( Dachkovsky & Sandler, 2009 ; Meir & Sandler, 2008 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A sizeable number of village signing communities have now been identified ( Zeshan & de Vos, 2012 ); all are reproductively isolated. A gene for deafness must be present in a population at its founding, must be introduced from the outside through in-migration, or must arise through mutation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The historical demography of the Martha’s Vineyard signing community

Power,

Meier

2024

Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The deaf population of Martha’s Vineyard has fascinated scholars for more than a century since Alexander Graham Bell’s research on the frequent occurrence of deafness there and since Groce’s book on the island’s signing community (Groce, N. E. (1985). Everyone here spoke sign language: Hereditary deafness on Martha’s Vineyard. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.). In Groce’s work, and in that of subsequent scholars, the Vineyard signing community has often been portrayed as remote and outlying, having developed independently of mainland signing communities for roughly 133 years until 1825. We re-examine that interpretation in light of historical, demographic, and genealogical evidence covering the period 1692–2008. We argue that the Vineyard signing community began in Chilmark in 1785, 93 years later than previously thought, and that it had had a brief period of independent development, roughly 40 years, before becoming well connected, through deaf education, to the nascent New England signing community. We consider the implications of the Vineyard community’s history for our understanding of how village signing communities develop.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The historical demography of the Martha’s Vineyard signing community

Power,

Meier

2024

Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, in some speech communities, language may be primarily transmitted to children in the home, at least early on. Sign languages too may be primarily transmitted to children in the home in some village signing communities (Zeshan and de Vos, 2012 ), in multi-generational family signing communities (Dikyuva, 2012 ), in relatively small networks of families with deaf members (Hou, 2016 ), and, in general, in any setting in which older generations sign with younger generations (Newport and Meier, 1985 ; van den Bogaerde and Baker, 2016 ; German, 2021 ). But, in some signing communities, an important setting for language transmission to children has been the deaf school and dormitory (Singleton and Meier, 2021 ).…”

Section: Relationships Among Spoken Languages and Among Signed Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Historical Linguistics of Sign Languages: Progress and Problems

Power

2022

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In contrast to scholars and signers in the nineteenth century, William Stokoe conceived of American Sign Language (ASL) as a unique linguistic tradition with roots in nineteenth-century langue des signes française, a conception that is apparent in his earliest scholarship on ASL. Stokoe thus contributed to the theoretical foundations upon which the field of sign language historical linguistics would later develop. This review focuses on the development of sign language historical linguistics since Stokoe, including the field's significant progress and the theoretical and methodological problems that it still faces. The review examines the field's development through the lens of two related problems pertaining to how we understand sign language relationships and to our understanding of cognacy, as the term pertains to signs. It is suggested that the theoretical notions underlying these terms do not straightforwardly map onto the historical development of many sign languages. Recent approaches in sign language historical linguistics are highlighted and future directions for research are suggested to address the problems discussed in this review.

show abstract