Cover not available
Part of
Multimodal Im/politeness: Signed, spoken, written
Edited by Andreas H. Jucker, Iris Hübscher and Lucien Brown
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 333] 2023
► pp. 27–63

Chapter 2
In your face

Im/politeness in signed languages, with examples from Swiss German Sign Language (DSGS)

ORCID logo | Center for Sign Language ResearchBasel
ORCID logo | University of Teacher Education in Special Needs (HFH)Zurich
This chapter begins by describing impolite forms of signing reported for many sign languages that seem to be based on the visual modality of this form of communication. Other im/polite conventions are influenced by the setting, register, type of speech act, or the perceived signing ability of the addressee. Some signs are perceived as impolite by signers of other cultures because their handshape or location components have impolite connotations in their culture; others reflect historically changing norms of the society. A cultural aversion to what is perceived as bragging seems to be shared by hearing German/Swiss German speakers and deaf signers of Swiss German Sign Language (DSGS).
Keywords: Swiss German Sign Language, DSGS, politeness, eye gaze, bragging, deaf culture, swiss culture
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The factor of visibility in im/polite signing
    • 2.1Always face-to-face
    • 2.2Getting the addressee/s’ attention
    • 2.3The addressee’s eye gaze
    • 2.4The addressee’s backchannelling behaviors
    • 2.5The signer’s eye gaze
    • 2.6The onlooker’s eye gaze
  • 3.Other factors affecting im/politeness in signing
    • 3.1Setting and register
    • 3.2Speech act and the addressee’s hearing or signing status
    • 3.3Cultural factors in im/polite signing
      • 3.3.1Differing connotations of a sign in other cultures or historical periods
      • 3.3.2Deaf signers living in both a deaf-signing and a hearing-speaking culture
  • 4.Examples of im/politeness perceived especially by DSGS signers
    • 4.1Methods of collecting these DSGS examples
    • 4.2Examples of signing perceived as impolite “bragging”
      • 4.2.1Bragging and the use of “mouthings”
      • 4.2.2Bragging by volunteering too much personal information
      • 4.2.3Bragging by modifying phonological components
      • 4.2.4Bragging by using too many “pedagogical” signs
    • 4.3Discussion: Self praise perceived as a form of im/polite bragging
      • 4.3.1Self-praise perceived as bragging in different cultures
      • 4.3.2Swiss modesty and a heightened aversion to bragging
  • 5.Summary and suggestions for further research
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 21 February 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.333.02boy
References (94)
References
Anderson, Leon. 2006. “Analytic Autoethnography.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 35 (4): 373–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aristodemo, Valentina, and Carlo Geraci. 2017. “Visible Degrees in Italian Sign Language.” Natural Language & Linguist Theory. DOI logo (Accessed online 14 November 2017).Google Scholar
Baker, Charlotte. 1977. “Regulators and Turn-taking in American Sign Language.” In On the Other Hand: New Perspectives on American Sign Language, ed. by Lynn Friedman, 215–236. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Anne, Beppie van den Bogaerde, Roland Pfau, and Trude Schermer (eds.). 2016. The Linguistics of Sign Languages: An Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Anne, and Beppie van den Bogaerde. 2020. “Overlap in Turn-taking in Signed Mother-Child Dyadic and Triadic Interactions.” In Understanding Deafness, Language, and Cognitive Development: Essays in Honour of Bencie Woll, ed. by Gary Morgan, 33–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baynton, Douglas C. 1996. Forbidden Signs: American Culture and the Campaign against Sign Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Johnathan. 2005. Fitting Security into the Swiss Value Landscape: Personal and Social Security Concerns in Switzerland. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Booth, Katie. 2021. The Invention of Miracles: Language, Power, and Alexander Graham Bell’s Quest to End Deafness. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Boyes Braem, Penny. 1995. Einführung in die Gebärdensprache und ihre Erforschung [An introduction to sign language and its research]. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Boyes Braem, Penny, and Thüring Bräm. 2000. “A Pilot Study of the Expressive Gestures Used by Classical Orchestra Conductors.” In The Signs of Language Revisited, ed. by Karen Emmorey, and Harlan Lane, 143–167. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Boyes Braem, Penny. 2001. “Functions of the Mouthings in the Signing of Deaf Early and Late Learners of Swiss German Sign Language (DSGS).” In The Hands Are the Head of the Mouth: The Mouth as Articulator in Sign Languages, ed. by Penny Boyes Braem, and Rachel Sutton-Spence, 99–132. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Boyes Braem, Penny, and Rachel Sutton-Spence (eds.). 2001. The Hands Are the Head of the Mouth: The Mouth as Articulator in Sign Languages. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Boyes Braem, Penny, Tobias Haug, und Patty Shores. 2012. “Gebärdenspracharbeit in der Schweiz: Rückblick und Ausblick.” Das Zeichen 90: 58–74.Google Scholar
Boyes Braem, Penny. 2012. “Evolving Methods for Written Representations of Signed Languages of the Deaf.” In Methods in Contemporary Linguistics: Trends in Linguistics Series, ed. by Andrea Ender, Adrian Leemann, and Bernard Wälchli, 411–438. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brag, Louise (ed.). 2001. Deaf World: A Historical Reader and Primary Sourcebook. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caccamise, Frank, Richard Dirst, James Stangarone, and Marilyn Mitchell-Caccamise. 1980. “General Factors to Consider in Interpreting Assignments.” In Introduction to Interpreting for Interpreters/Transliterators, Hearing-impaired Consumers, Hearing Consumers, ed. by Frank Caccamise, Richard Dirst, Rita Dominque DeVries, Joy Heil, Carl Kirchner, Suzie Kirchner, Anna Maria Finaldi, and James Stangarone, 15–31. Silver Spring, Md: Registry of the Interpreters for the Deaf (RID).Google Scholar
Caramore, Benno. 1998. Die Gebärdensprache in der schweizerischen Gehörlosenpädagogik des 19. Jahrhunderts [Sign language in 19th-century Swiss education of the deaf]. Hamburg: Verlag hörgeschädigte kinder.Google Scholar
Chambers, Diane P. 1998. Communicating in Sign: Creative Ways to Learn American Sign Language. New York: Fireside.Google Scholar
Chen Pichler, Deborah, and Helen Koulidobrova. 2015. “Acquisition of Sign Language as a Second Language (L2).” In The Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies in Language, ed. by Marc Marschark and Patricia Elizabeth Spenser. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cokely, Dennis, and Charlotte Baker. 1980. American Sign Language: A Teacher’s Resource Text on Curriculum, Methods, and Evaluation. Silver Spring MD: T.J. Publishers.Google Scholar
Dayter, Daria. 2021. “Dealing with Interactionally Risky Speech Acts in Simultaneous Interpreting: The Case of Self-praise.” Journal of Pragmatics 174: 28–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dotter, Franz. 2018. “Most Characteristic Elements of Sign Language Texts are Intricate Mixtures of Linguistic and Non-linguistic Parts, Aren’t They?”. Colloquium New Philologies 3 (1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Claire, and Gill Harold. 2014. “Deaf Space and the Principles of Universal Design.” Disability and Rehabilitation 36 (16): 1350–1359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 1993. Space in Danish Sign Language: The Semantics and Morphosyntax of the Use of Space in a Visual Language. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Ferreira Brito, Lucinda. 1995. Por uma Gramática de Línguas de Sinais [Towards a grammar of sign language].” Rio de Janeiro: Tempo Brasileiro.Google Scholar
Fischer, Renata, and Cathrin Jürgensen. 2000. “Gesprächsrollenwechsel (Turn Taking) in Dialogen gehörloser Seniorinnen im Altenheim.” Das Zeichen: Zeitschrift für Sprache und Kultur Gehörloser 51:110–125.Google Scholar
Fisher, Jami, Gene Mirus, and Donna Jo Napoli. 2019. “Sticky: Taboo Topics in Deaf Communities.” In The Oxford Handbook of Taboo Words and Language, ed. by Keith Allan. Oxford: Oxford Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
George, Johnny Earl. 2010. “Universals in the Visual-kinesthetic Modality: Politeness Marking Features in Japanese Sign Language (JSL).” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 36: 129–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Politeness in Japanese Sign Language (JSL): Polite JSL Expression as Evidence for Intermodal Language Contact Influence. PhD. Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley. ([URL]).
Girard-Groeber, Simone. 2015. “The Management of Turn Transition in Signed Interaction Through the Lens of Overlaps.” Frontiers in Psychology 6: article 741. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldblat, Ester, and Tova Most. 2018. “Cultural Identity of Young Deaf Adults with Cochlear Implants in Comparison to Deaf without Cochlear Implants and Hard-of-hearing Young Adults.” Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 23 (3): 228–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Groeber, Simone, and E. Pochon-Berger. 2014. “Turns and Turn-taking in Sign Language Interaction: A Study of Turn-final Holds.” Journal of Pragmatics 65: 121–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, Stephanie. 1989. “Train-Gone-Sorry: The Etiquette of Social Conversations in American Sign Language.” In American Deaf Culture: An Anthology, ed. by Sherman Wilcox, 89–102. Burtonsville, MD: Linstok Press.Google Scholar
Hansen, Martje. 2012. “Textlinguistik: Gebärdensprache im Kontext.” In Handbuch Deutsche Gebärdensprache: Sprachwissenschaftliche und anwendungsbezogene Perspektiven, ed. by Hanna Eichmann, Martje Hansen, and Jens Hessmann, 199–224. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Hesse, Rebecca, Alan Canonica, Mirjam Janett, Martin Lengwiler, and Florian Rudin. 2020. Aus erster Hand: Gehörlose, Gebärdensprache und Gehörlosenpädagogik in der Schweiz im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Zürich: Chronos Verlag.Google Scholar
Hofe, Harold von. 1943. “Gottfried Keller’s Conception of the Unique Character of Swiss Democracy.” Monatshefte für Deutschen Unterricht 35(2): 73–80.Google Scholar
Holtgraves, Thomas, and Jeffrey Dulin. 1994. “The Muhammad Ali Effect: Differences between African Americans and European Americans in Their Perceptions of a Truthful Bragger.” Language and Communication 14 (3): 275–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoza, Jack. 2001. The Mitigation of Face Threatening Acts in Interpreted Interaction: Requests and Rejections in American Sign Language and English. Boston University doctoral dissertation.
. 2007a. It’s Not What You Sign, It’s How You Sign it: Politeness in American Sign Language. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
. 2007b. “How Interpreters Convey Social Meaning: Implications for Interpreted Interaction.” Journal of Interpretation: 39–68.Google Scholar
. 2008. “Five Non-manual Modifiers that Mitigate Requests and Rejections in American Sign Language.” Sign Language Studies 8 (3): 264–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “The Discourse and Politeness Functions of HEY and WELL in American Sign Language.” In Discourse in Signed Languages, ed. by Cynthia Roy, 69–95. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Trevor, and Adam Schembri. 2007. Australian Sign Language: An Introduction to Sign Language Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klima, Edward, and Ursula Bellugi. 1979. The Signs of Language. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lane, Harlan. 1992. The Mask of Benevolence: Disabling the Deaf Community. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Lane, Harlan, Robert Hoffmeister, and Ben Bahan. 1996. A Journey into the Deaf-World. San Diego: Dawn Sign Press.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. Longman, London.Google Scholar
Lepic, Ryan, and Corinne Occhino. 2018. “A Construction Morphology Approach to Sign Language Analysis.” In The Construction of Words, ed. by Ryan Lepic and Corinne Occhino, 141–172. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locher, Miriam A., and Richard J. Watts. 2005. “Politeness Theory and Relational Work.” Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1): 9–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loos, Cornelia, Jens-Michael Cramer, and Donna Jo Napoli. 2020. “The Linguistic Sources of Offense of Taboo Terms in German Sign Language.” Cognitive Linguistics. 31(1): 73–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mapson, Rachel. 2013. “Politeness in British Sign Language: The Effects of Language Contact.” In Multilingual Theory and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics, ed. by Alasdair N. Archibald, 167–170. London: Scitsiugnil Press.Google Scholar
. 2014. “Polite appearances: How Non-manual Features Convey Politeness in British Sign Language.” Journal of Politeness Research 10 (2): 157–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Interpreting Linguistic Politeness from British Sign Language to English. PhD Dissertation, University of Bristol.
. 2019. “Im/politeness and Interpreting.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Pragmatics, ed. by Rebecca Tipton, and Louisa Desilla, 15–21. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. “Intercultural (Im)politeness: Influences on the Way Professional British Sign Language/English Interpreters Mediate Im/polite Language.” In Politeness in Professional Contexts, ed. by Dawn Archer, Karen Grainger, and Piotr Jagodzinski, 151–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. “Interpreters, Rapport, and the Role of Familiarity.” Journal of Pragmatics 176: 63–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marshall, Catherine, and Gretchen B. Rossman. 2016. Designing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
McBurney, Susan. 2012. “History of Sign Languages and Sign Language Linguistics.” In Sign Language: An International Handbook, ed. by Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach, and Bencie Woll, 909–948. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mesch, Johanna. 2016. “Manual Backchannel Responses in Signers’ Conversations in Swedish Sign Language.” Language & Communication 50: 22–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Lynn, Linda Cooke, Jennifer Tsang, and Faith Morgan. 1992. “Should I Brag?: Nature and Impact of Positive and Boastful Self-disclosures for Women and Men.” Human Communication Research 18 (3): 364–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mills, Sara. 2003. Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mindess, Anna. 1999. Reading between the Signs. Intercultural Communication for Sign Language Interpreters. Yarmouth, Maine/Boston MA: Intercultural Press.Google Scholar
Mirus, Gene, Jami Fisher, and Donna Jo Napoli. 2012. “Taboo Expressions in American Sign Language.” Lingua 122: 1004–1020. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mirus, Gene, Jami Fischer, and Donna Jo Napoli. 2019. “(Sub)lexical Changes in Iconic Signs to Realign with Community Sensibilities and Experiences.” Language in Society 49 (2): 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mohr, Susanne, and Katrin Renkwitz. 2020. “Multimodal Politeness in Ireland: A Cross-linguistic Comparison of Irish Sign Language and Irish English.” Presentation at the Symposium on Multimodal Im/politeness. Zurich, 23 October 2020.
Moore, Mathew S., and Linda Levitan. 1993. For Hearing People Only: Answers to Some of the Most Commonly Asked Questions about the Deaf Community, its Culture, and the ‘Deaf Reality’. Rochester: Deaf Life Press.Google Scholar
Mottez, Bernard. 1981. La Surdité dans la Vie de Tous les Jours. Paris: Centre technique national d’études et de recherches sur les handicaps et les inadaptations, C.T.N.E.R.H.I.Google Scholar
Moya-Avilés, Berta. 2020. “Pragmatics.” In A Grammar of Catalan Sign Language (LSC), ed. by Josep Quer, and Gemma Barberà. Online open access [URL]
Napoli, Donna, Jami Fischer, and Gene Mirus. 2013. “Bleached Taboo-term Predicates in American Sign Language.” Lingua 123: 148–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padden, Carol, and Tom Humphries. 2005. Inside Deaf Culture. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perniss, Pamela. 2018. “Why We Should Study Multimodal Language.” In Visual Language, ed. by Wendy Sandler, Marianne Gullberg, and Carol Padden. Frontiers in Psychology. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfau, Roland, Markus Steinbach, and Bencie Woll. 2012. Sign Language: An International Handbook. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pyers, Jennie. 2006. “Indicating the Body: Expression of Body Part Terminology in American Sign Language.” Language Sciences 28 (2–3): 280–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radanovic Felberg, Tatjana. 2016. “Impoliteness: A Challenge to Interpreters’ Professionalism.” Ambivalence 3 (1): 1–20.Google Scholar
Rittenhouse, Robert K., Calvin Johnson, Betty Overton, Shirley Freeman, and Kyle Jaussi. 1991. “The Black and Deaf Movements in America since 1960: Parallelism and an Agenda for the Future.” American Annals of the Deaf 136 (5): 392–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roush, Daniel. 1999. Indirectness Strategies in American Sign Language: Requests and Refusals. Master’s thesis. Gallaudet University, Washington, D.C.
. 2007. “Indirectness Strategies in American Sign Language Requests and Refusals: Deconstructing the Deaf-as-Direct Stereotype.” In Translation, Sociolinguistic, and Consumer Issues in Interpreting, ed. by Melanie Metzger, and Earl Fleetwood, 103–156. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
. 2011. “Language Between Bodies: A Cognitive Approach to Understanding Linguistic Politeness in American Sign Language.” Sign Language Studies 11 (3): 329–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roy, Cynthia. 1989. “Features of Discourse in an American Sign Language Lecture.” In The Sociolinguistics of the Deaf Community, ed. by Ceil Lucas, 443–457. San Diego, TX: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 2018. “The body as Evidence for the Nature of Language.” Frontiers in Psychology 9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schreier, S. / Zanni B. 2017. “Fluch der Bescheidenheit: Schweizer nehmen sich Mittelmass zum Vorbild” [The curse of modesty: The Swiss take mediocrity as their model]. Blog in 20min.ch, 7. Nov 2017.Google Scholar
Schwarz, Gerhard. 2015. “Bescheidenheit ist mehr als eine Zier” [Modesty is more than an adornment]. Blog [URL]. Feb. 17, 2015. Retrieved June 10, 2022.
Siple, Patricia. 1978. “Visual Constraints for Sign Language Communication.” Sign Language Studies 19: 95–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stokoe, William C. 1960. Studies in Linguistics – Sign Language Structure: An Outline of the Visual Communication Systems of the American Deaf. Buffalo, NY: University of Buffalo.Google Scholar
Stokoe, William C., D. C. Casterline, and C. G. Croneberg. 1976. A Dictionary of American Sign Language on Linguistic Principles. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.Google Scholar
Sutton-Spence, Rachel, and Bencie Woll. 1999. The Linguistics of British Sign Language: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sze, Felix A. B., Monica Xiao Wei, and Aaron Yiu Leung Wong. 2017. “Taboos and Euphemisms in Sex-related Signs in Asian Sign Languages.” Linguistics 55 (1): 153–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Herreweghe, Mieke. 2002. “Turn-taking Mechanisms and Active Participation in Meetings with Deaf and Hearing Participants in Flanders.” In Turn-taking, Fingerspelling, and Contact in Signed Languages, ed. by Ceil Lucas, 73–103. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Vermeerbergen, Myriam, Lorraine Leeson, and Onno Crasborn (eds.). 2007. Simultaneity in Signed Languages: Form and Function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Volterra, Virginia, Maria Roccaforte, Alessio Di Renzo, and Sabina Fontana. 2019. Descrivere la Lingua die Segni Italiana: Una Prospettiva Cognitiva e Sociosemiotica [Describing Italian Sign Language: A Cognitive and Sociosemiotic Perspective]. Bologna: Mulino.Google Scholar
Volterra, Virginia, Maria Roccaforte, Alessio di Renzo, and Sabina Fontana. 2022. Italian Sign Language from a Cognitive and Socio-semiotic Perspective: Implications for a General Language Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie B. 2000. “Phonological and Prosodic Layering of Nonmanuals in American Sign Language.” In The Signs of Language Revisited, ed. by Karen Emmorey, and Harlan Lane, 215–243. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Zimmer, June. 1989. “Toward a Description of Register Variation in American Sign Language.” In The Sociolinguistics of the Deaf community, ed. by Ceil Lucas, 253–272. San Diego, TX: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar