Cover not available
Article published In:
Thematic issue: Historical Linguistics of Sign Languages
[Diachronica 41:2] 2024
► pp. 251–298

Mother left, Father right

Artificial signs and diachronic change in sign language dialects in Belgium and the Netherlands

ORCID logo | Leiden University
 | Leiden University
Studies of diachronic change in sign languages are only available for a small number of sign languages, in part due to the scarcity of historical resources for sign languages. This article presents the first study of diachronic change in Nederlandse Gebarentaal ‘Dutch Sign Language’ (NGT) and Vlaamse Gebarentaal ‘Flemish Sign Language’ (VGT). It looks at the impact of an artificial sign system on the lexicons of the Gestel variant of NGT and the Limburg variant of VGT. The recovery of two 19th century manuscripts describing 3,000 signs and 7,000 signs of this system respectively enables us to compare this artificial system with published data for NGT and VGT from the 1950s and the present.
We focus on the resilience of an artificial distinction that is not considered distinctive in other natural sign languages, i.e., an absolute left/right distinction for gender marking in kinship terms. The results show that the NGT and VGT variants have partially changed or replaced all the artificial signs, except UNCLE/AUNT, NEPHEW/NIECE in NGT and PARENTS in VGT. The partial changes shed light on the mechanisms through which artificial elements are nativized to fit the phonological system of these sign languages. The changes observed in the left/right paradigm have implications for our understanding of the distribution of laterality in sign language phonology in general.
Finally, the impact of the highly restricted access to language models that were part of the strict oralist approaches in these school, and the consequent impoverished language input on diachronic change and lexical innovation are discussed.
Keywords: naturalization of artificial form-meaning units, methodic signs, historical linguistics of Nederlandse Gebarentaal, historical linguistics of Vlaamse Gebarentaal, laterality and diachronic change, dominance shift and diachronic change
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Diachronic change in signs
    • 1.2Nativization of artificial (“methodical”) signs
    • 1.3Phonological conditions regarding laterality in SLs
      • Laterality contrast in handedness
      • Laterality contrast in locations
      • A gender paradigm based on contrast in laterality
    • 1.4NGT-Gestel & VGT-Limburg: The van Beek-lineage
      • The impact of deaf education on the emergence of SLs and deaf communities
      • Linguistic research on NGT-Gestel & VGT-Maaseik
      • Van Beek’s system
      • Laterality in NGT-Gestel & VGT-Limburg
  • 2.Data sets
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Laterality in the van Beek sign system
    • 3.2Laterality for Gender in NGT-Gestel and VGT-Limburg dialects
      • 3.2.1Unchanged: Uncle & aunt and nephew & niece
      • 3.2.2Partially changed
        • Replacement of the left-right distinction by a laterality distinction: VADER and MOEDER (& OUDERS)
        • Female signs on the forehead move to the right and become initialized
          • Son and daughter
          • King and queen
      • 3.2.3Reduction of compound signs
        • Brother and sister
      • 3.2.4Completely replaced
        • Boy & girl
        • Grandfather & grandmother
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1Tendencies in diachronic sign change
    • 4.2Maintenance and modification of the “female left, male right” paradigm
      • Dominance Reversal replaced by laterality or annulled (resulting in manual polysemy)
    • 4.3Demise of a non-compliant paradigm in favor of a compliant one
    • 4.4Impoverished language input: Oralism, teaching trends and lexical variability
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 13 June 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.21052.nys
References (73)
References
Albanus, Brother 1882. Algemeene Gronden der Gebaren [General foundations of the Signs] Unpublished manuscript. Maaseik. [CMM archives, Tilburg].Google Scholar
Battison, Robbin. 1974. Phonological deletion in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 5(1). 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1978. Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstock Press.Google Scholar
Beek, Martinus van. 1832. Leesboek voor doofstomme kweekelingen der tweede klasse in het Instituut te Gemert [Textbook for deaf mute pupils in the second class at the Gemert Institute]. ’s Hertogenbosch: Gebr. Langenhuysen.Google Scholar
. ca. 1828. Regels der gebaren [Rules of the signs]. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Beidelman, Thomas O. 1961. Right and left hand among the Kaguru: A note on symbolic classification. Africa 31(3). 250–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. L. 1949. The Sign Is Not Arbitrary. Thesaurus: Boletín del Instituto Caro y Cuervo 51. 52–62.Google Scholar
Bouwmeester, Anne. 1983. Groninger Gebaren Woordenboek [Groningen Signs Dictionary]. Haren: Koninklijk Instituut voor Doven ‘H. D. Guyot’.Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane. 2001. Foreign vocabulary in sign languages: A cross-linguistic investigation of word formation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buyens, Maurice. 2005. De dove persoon, zijn gebarentaal en het dovenonderwijs [The deaf person, his sign language and deaf education]. Antwerp: Garant/Maklu.Google Scholar
Cagle, Keith. 2010. Exploring the ancestral roots of American Sign Language: Lexical borrowing from Cistercian Sign Language and French Sign Language. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico dissertation.
Cantin, Yann & Florence Encrevé. 2022 Perspectives: On the historicalness of sign languages. Frontiers in Communication 71(801862). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cantin, Yann. 2016. Des origines du noétomalalien français, perspectives historiques. Glottopol : Revue de sociolinguistique en ligne 271. 8–17.Google Scholar
. 2018. Les racines médiévales du noétomalalien parisien (XVIIIe-Mi-XIXe siècles). IIIè rencontres interdisciplinaires franco-brésiliennes: Surdité, Singularité et Universalité, Oct 2018 Paris, France. [URL]
Cokart, Richard & Trude Schermer. 2016. De geheimen van Sint Michielsgestel: Lexicale verschillen op basis van een corpus [The secrets of Sint Michielsgestel: Lexical differences on the basis of a corpus]. In Verslag Activiteiten: Nederlands Gebarencentrum in het kader van OCW subsidie 2016 [Report activities Dutch Sign Center for the OCW subsidy 2016], 22–26. Online document. [URL] [visited 05-09-2021].
Crasborn, Onno, Els van der Kooij, Inge Zwitserlood, and Ellen Ormel. 2020. Nederlandse Gebarentaal (NGT) dataset in Global Signbank. In Onno Crasborn, et al. (eds.), Global Signbank. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen. [URL]. Accessed May 2021.
Crasborn, Onno. 2011. The other hand in sign language phonology. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth V. Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, 223–240. Malden, MA & Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Weerdt, Kristof, Eline Vanhecke, Mieke Van Herreweghe & Myriam Vermeerbergen. 2003. Op (onder)zoek naar de Vlaamse gebaren-schat [On the (re)search of the Flemish sign-treasure]. Gent: Cultuur voor Doven.Google Scholar
Delaporte, Yves & Jeannine Kootstra. 2021. Signes de Nogent-le-Rotrou : Le dialecte des Sourds à l’Institution de l’Immaculée-Conception. Les Essarts-le-roi, France: Editions du Fox.Google Scholar
Delaporte, Yves & Nicole Périot. 2020. Signes de Clermont-Ferrand : Le dialecte des Sourds à l’école des Gravouses. Les Essarts-le-roi, France: Editions du Fox.Google Scholar
Delaporte, Yves & Yvette Pelletier. 2012. Signes de Pont-de-Beauvoisin : Le dialecte du quartier des filles de l’Institution nationale des sourds-muets et sourdes-muettes de Chambéry (1910–1960). Limoges, France: Editions Lambert-Lucas.Google Scholar
Delaporte, Yves. 2005. Deux siècles d’histoire de la langue des signes françaises : Les tendances évolutives. [URL]
. 2007. Dictionnaire étymologique et historique de la langue des signes française : Origine et évolution de 1200 signes. Les Essarts-le-Roi, France: Éditions du Fox.Google Scholar
Fischer, Susan D. 1975. Influences on word order change in American Sign Language. In Charles Li (ed.), Word order and word order change, 1–25. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Susan. 1996. By the numbers: Language-internal evidence for creolization. In William H. Edmondson & Ronnie B. Wilbur (eds.), International review of sign linguistics, vol. 11, 1–22. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
. 2015. Sign languages in their historical context. In Claire Bowern & Bethwyn Evans (eds.), The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics, 442–465. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Susan & Qunhu Gong. 2010. Variation in East Asian sign language structures. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages (Cambridge Language Surveys), 501–521. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Marked handshapes in Asian sign languages. In Rachel Channon & Harry van der Hulst (eds.), Formational units in sign language, 19–41. Boston: DeGruyter.Google Scholar
Frishberg, Nancy. 1975. Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language 51(3). 696–719. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1985. Dominance relation and discourse structure. In William Stokoe & Virginia Volterra (eds.), SLR ’83: III. International Symposium on Sign Language Research, 79–90. Silver Spring, MD: Linstock Press.Google Scholar
Jantunen, Tommy. 2003. Viittomien historiallinen muutos ja deikonisaatio suomalaisessa viittomakielessä [Historical change and de-iconization in Finnish Sign Language]. Puhe ja kieli 1. 43–60.Google Scholar
Kanda, Kazuyuki & Yutaka Osugi. 2011. Database of historical changes in Japanese signs from 1901–2011. International Conference on Historical Linguistics [ICHL26], Osaka, Japan.Google Scholar
Kegl, Judy, Anne Senghas & Marie Coppola. 1999. Creation through contact: Sign language emergence and sign language change in Nicaragua. In Michel De Graff (ed.), Language creation and language change: Creolization, diachrony, and development, 179–237. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kooij, Els van der 2002. Phonological categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands: The role of phonetic implementation and iconicity. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Kubuş, Okan & Annette Hohenberger. 2011. The phonetics and phonology of the TİD (Turkish Sign Language) bimanual alphabet. In Rachel Channon & Harry van der Hulst (ed.), Formational units in sign languages, 43–64. De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Kubuş, Okan. 2008. An analysis of Turkish Sign Language (TİD) phonology and morphology. Ankara: Middle East Technical University MA thesis.
Kusters, Annelies & Maartje De Meulder. 2013. Understanding deafhood: In search of its meanings. American Annals of the Deaf 1571. 428–438. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martins, Mariana & Marta Morgado. 2013. Guinea-Bissau: The birth of a sign language. Cadernos de Saúde 6(2). 68–68.Google Scholar
Morgan, Hope. 2022. A phonological grammar of Kenyan Sign Language. Boston: De Gruyter/ Ishara Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Ruth, Scott Liddell, Marius Haikali, Sackeus Ashipala, Polo Daniel, Hilifilua Haiduwah, Rauna Ndeshihafela Hashiyana, inter alia, & Paul Setzer. 1991. Namibian Sign Language to English and Oshiwambo. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.Google Scholar
Napoli, Donna Jo & Nathan Sanders. Forthcoming. Iconicity and biomechanics in the historical reconstruction of sign languages. Unpublished manuscript.
Needham, Rodney. 1967. Right and left in Nyoro symbolic classification. Africa 37(4). 425–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nyst, V. 2007. A descriptive analysis of Adamorobe Sign Language (Ghana). Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Okrouhlíková, Lenka. 2021. Historical roots of Czech Sign Language the first half of the 19th century. E-Pedagogium 21(2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Onno Crasborn, Onno, Richard Bank, Inge Zwitserlood, Els Van der Kooij, Ellen Ormel, Johan Ros, Anique Schuller, et al. 2016. NGT signbank. Nijmegen: Radboud University Centre for Language Studies.Google Scholar
Otto, Orna, Rakkel Ndilenga & Padelia Maundjebo. 2006. Namibian Signs: Sign language instruction DVD for families of hearing-impaired children. Windhoek, Namibia: CLaSH.Google Scholar
Padden, Carol & David Perlmutter. 1987. American Sign Language and the architecture of phonological theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5(3). 335–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paget, Richard. 1936. The new sign language. Deaf Quarterly News (July, August, September).Google Scholar
Power, Justin. 2022. Historical linguistics of sign languages: Progress and problems. Frontiers in Psychology 131. 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quinn, Gary. 2010. Schoolization: An account of the origins of regional variation in British Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 10(4). 476–501. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radutzky, Elena. 1989. Historical change in the sign language of deaf people in Italy. New York: NYU dissertation.
Regina e Souza Campello, A. 2020. Aspects of the historical development of Brazilian Sign Language: From the 18th to the 21st century. In Ronice de Quadros-Müller (ed.), Brazilian Sign Language Studies, 33–52. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sáfár, Anna, Laurence Meurant, Thierry Haesenne, Ellen Nauta, Danny De Weerdt & Ellen Ormel. 2015. Mutual intelligibility among the sign languages of Belgium and the Netherlands. Linguistics 53(2). 353–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sagara, Keiko. 2022. Diachronic change in Japanese Sign Language, Taiwan Sign Language and South Korean Sign Language: Focus on kinship terms. Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research [TISLR14]. 09/28/2022.Google Scholar
Schembri, Adam, Kearsy Cormier, Trevor Johnston, David McKee, Rachel McKee & Bencie Woll. 2010. British, Australian, and New Zealand sign languages: Origins, transmission, variation, and change. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign Languages (Cambridge Language Surveys), 476–498. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schermer, Gertrude M., Rita Harder & Heleen Bos. 1988. Handen uit de mouwen: Gebaren uit de Nederlandse Gebarentaal in kaart gebracht [Hands out of the sleeves: Mapping signs of the Dutch Sign Language]. Utrecht: NSDSK/Dovenraad.Google Scholar
Shaw, Emily & Yves Delaporte. 2014. A historical and etymological dictionary of American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Siple, Patricia A. 1973. Constraints for a sign language from visual perception data. (Working paper.) La Jolla, CA: Salk Institute.Google Scholar
Supalla, Ted & Patricia Clark. 2014. Sign language archaeology: Understanding the historical roots of American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Supalla, Ted. 2008. Sign language archeology: Integrating historical linguistics with fieldwork on young sign languages. In Ronice Müller de Quadros (eds.), Sign languages: Spinning and unraveling the past, present and future, 574–583. Petrópolis, Brazil: Editora Arara Azul.Google Scholar
. 2013. The role of historical research in building a model of sign language typology, variation, and change. In Ritsuko Kikusawa & Lawrence Reid (eds), Historical linguistics 2011: Selected papers from the 20th International Conference on Historical Linguistics [ICHL20], 15–42. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taşcı, Süleyman S. 2014. Hand reversal and assimilation in TİD. In Arik, Engin (ed.), Current Directions in Turkish Sign Language Research, 711. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Tervoort, Bernard Th. M. 1953a. Structurele analyse van visueel taalgebruik binnen een groep dove kinderen Deel I Tekst [Structural analysis of visual language use in a group of deaf children Part I Text]. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation.
1953b. Structurele analyse van visueel taalgebruik binnen een groep dove kinderen Deel II, Materiaal, Registers, Enz. [Structural analysis of visual language use in a group of deaf children Part II Materials, Registers, etc.]. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation.
Tijsseling, Corrie. 2014. ‘School, waar?’: Een onderzoek naar de betekenis van het Nederlandse dovenonderwijs voor de Nederlandse dovengemeenschap, 1790–1990 [‘School, where?’: A study into the meaning of Dutch deaf education for the Dutch deaf community]. Utrecht: Utrecht University dissertation.
Vanhecke, Eline. 2000. Regionale variatie in de Vlaamse Gebarentaal [Regional variation in Flemish Sign Language]. Handelingen-Koninklijke Zuid-Nederlandse Maatschappij voor Taal-en Letterkunde en Geschiedenis 541. 109–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Velde, Wim van der. 1975/ Stervende Taal ‘Dying Language’. Documentary film. Stichting Film en Wetenschap [Film and Science Foundation].Google Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman & Corrine Occhino. 2016. Historical change in signed languages. Oxford Handbooks Online. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, Erin L. 2009. Typology of signed languages: Differentiation through kinship terminology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico dissertation.
Woll, Bencie. 1987. Historical and comparative aspects of British Sign Language. In Jim Kyle (ed.), Sign and School: Using signs in deaf children’s development, 12–34. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.Google Scholar
Woodward, James. 1976. Signs of change: Historical variation in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 101. 81–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1978. Historical bases of American Sign Language. In Patricia Siple (ed.), Understanding language through sign language research, 333–348. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Zverev, Yuriy P. 2006. Cultural and environmental pressure against left-hand preference in urban and semi-urban Malawi. Brain and Cognition 60(3). 295–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar