Cover not available
To be specified published In:
Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 20:1 (2017) ► pp.109–128
In this issue

Emerging linguistic features of Sao Tome and Principe Sign Language

| Center of Interdisciplinary Research on Health (CIIS), Health Sciences Institute, Catholic University of Portugal, Lisbon
| Center of Interdisciplinary Research on Health (CIIS), Health Sciences Institute, Catholic University of Portugal, Lisbon
| CUF – Infante Santo Hospital, Lisbon
| Center of Interdisciplinary Research on Health (CIIS), Health Sciences Institute, Catholic University of Portugal, Lisbon | Centro de Linguística da Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Faculdade Ciências Sociais e Humanas, Universidade Nova de Lisboa
| Center of Interdisciplinary Research on Health (CIIS), Health Sciences Institute, Catholic University of Portugal, Lisbon
| CUF – Infante Santo Hospital, Lisbon
| Marquês de Valle Flôr Institute, Lisbon

In Sao Tome and Principe there are approximately five thousand deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. Until recently, these people had no language to use among them other than basic home signs used only to communicate with their families. With this communication gap in mind, a project was set up to help them come together in a common space in order to create a dedicated environment for a common sign language to emerge.

In less than two years, the first cohort began to sign and to develop a newly emerging sign language – the Sao Tome and Principe Sign Language (LGSTP). Signs were elicited by means of drawings and pictures and recorded from the beginning of the project. The emergent structures of signs in this new language were compared with those reported for other emergent sign languages such as the Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language and the Lengua de Señas de Nicaragua, and several similarities were found at the first stage.

In this preliminary study on the emergence of LGSTP, it was observed that, in its first stage, signs are mostly iconic and exhibit a greater involvement of the articulators and a larger signing space when compared with subsequent stages of LGSTP emergence and with other sign languages. Although holistic signs are the prevalent structure, compounding seems to be emerging. At this stage of emergence, OSV seems to be the predominant syntactic structure of LGSTP. Yet the data suggest that new signers exhibit difficulties in syntactic constructions with two arguments.

Keywords: sign language emergence, vocabulary development, iconicity, word order, language policy, home signs
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Emergence of new sign languages
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Sample
    • 3.2Procedure
    • 3.3Analysis
  • 4.Emerging linguistic features of Sao Tome and Principe Sign Language (LGSTP)
    • 4.1Iconicity as a major factor in the emergence of signs
    • 4.2Phonological characteristics of emerging signs
    • 4.3Trends in emergent morphology
    • 4.4Emerging syntax
    • 4.5Sign development
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 6 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.20.1.04min
References
Al-Fityani, Kinda
2007 Arab sign languages: A lexical comparison. Technical Report. Center for Research in Language Newsletter 19(1).Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark, Irit Meir, Carol A. Padden & Wendy Sandler
2008 The roots of linguistic organization in a new language. Interaction Studies: Special Issue on Holophrasis vs. Compositionality in the Emergence of Protolanguage 9(1). 131–150.Google Scholar
Carmo, Patrícia, Ricardo Oliveira & Ana Mineiro
2013 Dicionário da Língua Gestual de São Tomé e Príncipe – Dicionário oficial da República Democrática de São Tomé e Príncipe. Lisboa: UCEditora.Google Scholar
Caroça, Cristina
In preparation. Contribution to the study of epidemiological factors associated with sensorineural hearing loss in the population of Sao Tome and Principe. Lisbon: Catholic University of Portugal. PhD dissertation.
Cormier, Kearsy
2012 Pronouns. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language. An international handbook (HSK – Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science), 227–244. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dachkovsky, Svetlana, Christina Healy & Wendy Sandler
2013 Visual intonation in two sign languages. Phonology 30(2). 211–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Susan & Harry van der Hulst
2011 Sign language structures. In Mark Marschark & Patricia E. Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education, Volume 11 (2nd edition), 336–349. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frishberg, Nancy
1975 Arbitrariness and iconicity: historical change in American Sign Language. Language 511. 696–719. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, Susan
2003 The resilience of language: What gesture creation in deaf children can tell us about how all children learn language. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Kegl, Judy, Ann Senghas & Marie Coppola
1999 Creation through contact: Sign language emergence and sign language change in Nicaragua. In Michael DeGraff (ed.), Language creation and language change: creolization, diachrony, and development, 197–237. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kisch, Shifra
2012 Demarcating generations of signers in the dynamic sociolinguistic landscape of a shared sign-language: the case of the Al-Sayyid Bedouin. In Ulrike Zeshan & Connie de Vos (eds.), Sign languages in village communities: anthropological and linguistic insights, 87–125. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F.
1960 The origin of speech. Scientific American 2031. 88–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William
1994 Principles of linguistic change. Volume I: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2001 Principles of linguistic change. Volume II: External factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott K.
1980 American Sign Language syntax. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit & Wendy Sandler
2008 A language in space. The story of Israeli Sign Language. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit, Wendy Sandler, Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff
2010 Emerging sign languages. In Mark Marschark & Patricia E. Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education, Volume 21, 267–280. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Padden, Carol, Irit Meir, Wendy Sandler & Mark Aronoff
2010 Against all expectations: Encoding subjects and objects in a new language. In Donna Gerdts, John Moore & Maria Polinsky (eds). Hypothesis A / hypothesis B: Linguistics explorations in honor of David M. Perlmutter, 383–400. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Perniss, Pamela, Robin L. Thompson & Gabriella Vigliocco
2010 Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology 11. 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy
2005 An overview of sign language linguistics. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd ed., 328–338. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy, Irit Meir, Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff
2005 The emergence of grammar: Systematic structure in a new language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) 102(7). 2661–2665. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy
2010 Prosody and syntax in sign languages. Transactions of the Philological Society 1081. 298–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy, Irit Meir, Svetlana Dachkovsky, Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff
2011 The emergence of complexity in prosody and syntax. Lingua 121(13). 2014–2033. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Senghas, Ann
1995 Children’s contribution to the birth of Nicaraguan Sign Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Senghas, Ann, Sotaro Kita & Aslı Özyürek
2004 Children creating core properties of language: Evidence from an emerging sign language in Nicaragua. Science 3051. 1779–1782. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Senghas, Ann, Marie Coppola, Elissa Newport, Ted Supalla
1997 Argument structure in Nicaraguan Sign Language: the emergence of grammatical devices. In Elizabeth Hughes, Mary Hughes & Annabel Greenhill (eds.), Proceedings of the Boston University conference on language development (BUCLD), 550–561. Boston, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Taub, Sarah F.
2000 Iconicity in American Sign Language: Concrete and metaphorical applications. Spatial Cognition and Computation 2(1). 31–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taub, Sarah. F.
2001 Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woll, Bencie, Rachel Sutton-Spence & Frances Elton
2001 Multilingualism: the global approach to sign language. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), The sociolinguistics of sign languages, 8–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike
(ed.) 2006 Interrogative and negative constructions in sign languages. Nijmegen: Ishara Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Dachkovsky, Svetlana, Rose Stamp & Wendy Sandler
2018. Constructing Complexity in a Young Sign Language. Frontiers in Psychology 9 DOI logo
Mineiro, Ana, Inmaculada Concepción Báez-Montero, Mara Moita, Isabel Galhano-Rodrigues & Alexandre Castro-Caldas
2021. Disentangling Pantomime From Early Sign in a New Sign Language: Window Into Language Evolution Research. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo
Zlatev, Jordan, Przemysław Żywiczyński & Sławomir Wacewicz
2020. Pantomime as the original human-specific communicative system. Journal of Language Evolution 5:2 ► pp. 156 ff. DOI logo
Żywiczyński, Przemysław, Marta Sibierska, Sławomir Wacewicz, Joost van de Weijer, Francesco Ferretti, Ines Adornetti, Alessandra Chiera & Valentina Deriu
2021. Evolution of conventional communication. A cross-cultural study of pantomimic re-enactments of transitive events. Language & Communication 80 ► pp. 191 ff. DOI logo
Żywiczyński, Przemysław, Sławomir Wacewicz & Casey Lister
2021. Pantomimic fossils in modern human communication. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 376:1824 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 february 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.