THE ROLE OF VISUAL MODALITY IN LANGUAGE VITALITY AND MAINTENANCE

Burkova Svetlana Igorevna

DOI: 10.23951/2307-6119-2021-3-19-30

Information About Author:

Burkova Svetlana Igorevna, candidate of philology, associate professor. Novosibirsk State Technical University. 20 Karl Marx ave., Novosibirsk, Russia, 630073. E-mail: burkova_s@mail.ru

The paper discusses sociolinguistic aspects of Russian Sign Language (RSL) and attempts to show that the tools used to access the degree of language vitality, which were developed for spoken languages, are not quite suitable to access vitality of sign languages. For example, if to try to assess the vitality of RSL in terms of six-point scale of the “nine factors” system proposed by UNESCO (Language vitality ..., 2003), which is used in the Atlas of Endangered Languages, the assessment of RSL would be no more than 3 points. In other words, RSL would be characterized as an endangered language. It is an unwritten language, mainly used in everyday communication; it exists in the environment of functionally much more powerful spoken Russian; the overwhelming majority of RSL signers are bilinguals, they use spoken Russian, at least in its written form; most deaf children acquire RSL not in the family, from birth, but later in life, at kindergartens or schools; the conditions of RSL acquisition affect the deaf signers’ language proficiency, as well as spoken Russian affects RSL’s lexicon and grammar; RSL still remains insufficiently studied and poorly documented, etc. However, RSL, as a native communication system of the Deaf, based on visual modality, is not only well maintained, but even expands some spheres of use. The main factor, which supports maintenance of RSL and which is not taken into account in the existing tools to access the degree of language vitality is visual modality. The auditory modality is inaccessible or poorly accessible for the deaf, so they can not completely shift to spoken Russian. Visual modality remains the most natural for their communication. In addition, modern technologies and the internet provide much more opportunities for the existence of RSL in this modality and for its development.

Keywords: language vitality, sign languages, visual modality

References:

Bazoev V. Z., Palenny`j V. A. Chelovek iz mira tishiny`. M: IKCz «Akademkniga», 2002.

Bratolyubov A. Ya. Pantomima molitv, ili: Opisanie mimicheskix molitvenny`x znakov. Opy`t zakonouchitelya Sankt-Peterburgskogo uchilishha gluxonemy`x, protoiereya Aleksandra Bratolyubova. S prilozheniem ruchnoj azbuki. SPb., 1872.

Burkova, Kimmel`man (red.). Vvedenie v lingvistiku zhestovy`x yazy`kov. Russkij zhestovy`j yazy`k: uchebnik. Novosibirsk, NGTU, 2019.

Davidenko T. P., Komarova A. A. Kratkij ocherk po lingvistike RZhYa // A. A. Komarova (sost.), Sovremenny`e aspekty` zhestovogo yazy`ka. M.: VOG, 2006. S. 146–161.

Fleri V. I. Gluxonemy`e, rassmatrivaemy`e v otnoshenii k ix sostoyaniyu i k sposobnostyam obrazovaniya, samy`m svojstvenny`m ix prirode. SPb., 1835.

Grenoble L. An overview of Russian Sign Language // Sign Language Studies. 1992. Vol. 21/77. Pp. 321–338.

Language Vitality and Endangerment: Document submitted to the International Expert Meeting on UNESCO Programme Safeguarding of Endangered Languages Paris, 10–12 March 2003 [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/Language_vitality_and_endangerment_EN.pdf

Meir I., Sandler W., Padden C., Aronoff M. Emerging Sign Languages // M. Marschark, P. E. Spencer (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language, and Education. Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Pp. 267–281.

Mitchell R. E, Karchmer M. A. Chasing the mythical ten percent: Parental hearing status of deaf and hard of hearing students in the United States // Sign Language Studies. 2004. Vol. 4(2). Pp. 138–163.

Problemy` gluxix lyudej: Interv`yu s prezidentom Vserossijskogo obshhestva gluxix V.N. Ruxledevy`m ot 30.10.2014 g. [E`lektronny`j resurs] // Sajt partii «Edinaya Rossiya». URL: https://er.ru/interview/2014/10/29/problemy-gluhih-lyudej/

Prozorova E. V. Markery` lokal`noj struktury` diskursa v russkom zhestovom yazy`ke: Diss.kand. filol. nauk. M.: MGU, 2009.

Woll B., Sutton-Spence R., Elton F. Multilingualism: The global approach to sign language // C. Lucas (ed.), The socio-linguistics of sign languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Pp. 8–32.

Yazy`k i obshhestvo. E`nciklopediya / Otv. red. V. Yu. Mixal`chenko. M.: Azbukovnik, 2016.

Brentari D. (ed.), Sign Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Zajceva G. L. Daktilologiya. Zhestovaya rech`. M.: Prosveshhenie, 1991.

Zajceva G. L. Infleksiya kak sredstvo smy`sloobrazovaniya v razgovornom zhestovom yazy`ke gluxix // E`ksperimental`ny`e metody` v psixolingvistike. M., 1987.

Zajceva G. L. Vy`razhenie prostranstvenny`x otnoshenij v mimiko-zhestikulyatornoj rechi gluxix: Avtoref. diss. kand. ped. nauk. M.: APN SSSR. NII defektologii, 1969.

Zajceva G. L., Frumkina R. M. Psixolingvisticheskie aspekty` izucheniya zhestovogo yazy`ka // Defektologiya. 1981. № 1.

Zeshan U., Vos C. de. (eds.). Sign Languages in Village Communities: Anthropological and Linguistic Insights. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter & Ishara Press, 2012.

( 757.3 kB ) ( 692.94 kB )

Issue: 3, 2021

Series of issue: Issue 3

Rubric: LINGUISTICS

Pages: 19 — 30

Downloads: 572