Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Figures
- List of Tables
- Notes on Contributors
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Sign languages in the world
- 3 Sign languages in contact
- 4 Variation and change in sign languages
- 5 Discourse analysis and sign languages
- 6 Language policy and planning in Deaf communities
- 7 Language attitudes in Deaf communities
- Index
- References
5 - Discourse analysis and sign languages
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2015
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Figures
- List of Tables
- Notes on Contributors
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Sign languages in the world
- 3 Sign languages in contact
- 4 Variation and change in sign languages
- 5 Discourse analysis and sign languages
- 6 Language policy and planning in Deaf communities
- 7 Language attitudes in Deaf communities
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
People often wonder what discourse analysis is and what the field of study includes. As a newer field, discourse analysis is still determining its own boundaries. It is different from traditional linguistics in several ways – it uses natural data for analysis, and it deals with utterances, as opposed to sentences. If you spend time observing everyday talk, you will notice that these utterances rarely look like those grammatical sentences seen in the grammar books and often described in linguistic research about syntax and grammar. In everyday interaction, people do not always use complete “sentences,” they leave out information, they add meaning with their voice, or their faces, and they leave their comments unfinished. Yet, we still understand each other. An utterance, then, is the real-life expression of people's thoughts, ideas, and feelings.
Simply put, discourse analysis is the study of language in use. In discourse analysis, we study how people interact by expressing meaning using language within a context. This includes much more than just studying the words or signs that make up an utterance. It includes all the aspects of those utterances: pacing, facial expression, body shifting, gestures, and any other features that add meaning to an utterance. It also includes building understanding one utterance at a time, from beginning to end, in real time.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Sociolinguistics and Deaf Communities , pp. 95 - 119Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2015
References
(1977) Regulators and turn-taking in American Sign Language discourse. In (ed.), On the Other Hand: New Perspectives on American Sign Language (pp. 215–236). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1995) Beyond Translation: Essays in Philology. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2002) Prosody on the hands and face. Sign Language and Linguistics 5(2): 105–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2009) Visual intonation in the prosody of a sign language. Language and Speech 52(2–3): 287–314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2004) Body partitioning in real-space blends. Cognitive Linguistics 15(2): 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2011). The body in scene depictions. In (ed.), Discourse in Signed Languages (pp. 3–45). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
(2001) The transcription of discourse. In , , and (eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 321–348). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(1992) Point of view in Danish Sign Language. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 15(2): 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and (2007) Seeing sentence boundaries. Sign Language and Linguistics 10(2): 177–200.Google Scholar
(1981) Replies and Responses: Forms of Talk (pp. 5–77). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
(1975) Logic and conversation. In and (eds.), Syntax and Semantics (vol. III, pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(2010) The interaction of eye blinks and other prosodic cues in German Sign Language. Sign Language and Linguistics 13(1): 3–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2010) OOs and AAs: Mouth gestures as ideophones in American Sign Language, unpublished dissertation, Gallaudet University.
(2007) It's Not What You Sign: Politeness in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
(2011) The discourse and politeness functions of HEY and WELL in American Sign Language. In (ed.), Discourse in Signed Languages (pp. 69–95). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
(2005) Introduction to the theory and practice of signed language interpreting. In (ed.), Topics in Signed Language Interpreting: Theory and Practice 63: 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2010) From archive to corpus: Transcription and annotation in the creation of signed language corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(1): 106–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1972) The Transformation of Experience in Narrative Syntax: Language in the Inner City (pp. 354–96). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
(2003) Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and (2011) The Hidden Treasure of Black ASL: Its History and Structure. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. [book + DVD]Google Scholar
and (2013) Turn-taking in Brazilian Sign Language. Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders 4(1).Google Scholar
(1995) Constructed dialogue and constructed action in American Sign Language. Sociolinguistics in Deaf communities 255–271.
(2000) Interactive role-plays as a teaching strategy. In (ed.), Innovative Practices for Teaching Sign Language Interpreters (pp. 83–108). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
and (2001) Discourse analysis. In (ed.), The Sociolinguistics of Sign Languages (pp. 112–144). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2004) Constructed dialogue and constructed action in Conversational narratives in ASL, poster presented at the Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR 8). Barcelona, September 30–October 2.
and (2012) Prosodic correlated of sentences in signed languages: A literature review and suggestions for new types of studies. Sign Language Studies 12(2): 279–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2009) Nonmanuals: Their Grammatical and Prosodic Rules. Sign languages. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
, , , and (2010) Conventions for sign and speech transcription of child bimodal bilingual corpora in ELAN. Language, Interaction, and Acquisition 1(1): 11–40.Google Scholar
(1999) Indirect strategies in American Sign Language: Requests and refusals, unpublished master's thesis, Gallaudet University, Washington, DC.
(2007) Indirectness strategies in American Sign Language requests and refusals: deconstructing the deaf-as-direct stereotype. In and (eds.), Translation, Sociolinguistic, and Consumer Issues in Interpreting (pp. 103–156). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
(1989) Features of discourse in an American Sign Language lecture. In (ed.), The Sociolinguistics of the Deaf Community (pp. 231–251). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Turn exchange in an interpreted medical encounter. In , , , and (eds.), From Topic Boundaries to Omission. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
(2011) Referring expressions in ASL discourse. In (ed.), Discourse in Signed Languages (pp. 96–118). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
, , and (2006). The relationship between eye gaze and verb agreement in American Sign Language: An eye-tracking study. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24(2): 571–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Identifying Depiction in American Sign Language Presentations, unpublished dissertation. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.Google Scholar
(2011) Identifying depiction: Constructed action and constructed dialogue in ASL presentations. In (ed.), Discourse in Signed Languages (pp. 46–66). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
, , and (2006) Explaining prosodic body leans in Sign Language of the Netherlands: Pragmatics required. Journal of Pragmatics 38(10): 1598–1614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1994) Eyeblinks and ASL phrase structure. Sign Language Studies 84(1): 221–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2005) Towards a cognitive model of interpreting. In (ed.), Topics in Signed Language Interpreting (pp. 135–164). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
and (2006) Modality in American Sign Language. In (ed.), Verbal and Signed Languages: Comparing Structures, Constructs and Methodologies (pp. 107–131). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(1991) Spatial referencing and cohesion in an American Sign Language text. Sign Language Studies 73(1): 397–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1993) Spatial mapping in comparative discourse frames in an American Sign Language lecture, unpublished dissertation, Washington, DC: Georgetown University.Google Scholar
(1995) Comparative discourse frames in an ASL text. In and (eds.), Language, Gesture, and Space (pp. 85–114). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(1996) Spatial mapping in ASL discourse. In Proceedings of the 1996 Conference of Interpreter Trainers Convention (pp. 1–28). Little Rock, AK.Google Scholar
(1998) Spatial mapping and involvement in ASL story-telling. In (ed.), Pinky Extension and Eye Gaze (pp. 183–210). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
(2000) It just doesn't look like ASL! Defining, recognizing, and teaching prosody in ASL. In CIT at 21: Celebrating Excellence (pp. 103–115). Silver Spring, MD: RID Publications.Google Scholar