Abstract
In this chapter, we consider how people who are born deaf and lose their sight later in life go about adapting Australian sign language (Auslan) for tactile delivery and reception. We show that some adaptations have become highly conventionalised among our participants, while others remain ad-hoc, but all have an underlying logic that revolves around the particular challenges of perceiving what was a visual language via touch alone. Tactile Auslan is constantly shaped by deafblind signers’ discourse, the actual use of language. Along with the signers’ past experiences with the language, and with their physical and environmental changes, their interaction creates recognizable patterns. In light of this, we reflect on how the concept of enregisterment may serve as a way of theorising the adaptation process of deafblind signers’ use of Auslan, and understanding the sedimentation of tactile signing into conventionalised meanings.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
The most in-depth study of contact signing has been on contact between ASL and English speakers and signers. Lucas and Valli (1992) argue that rather than calling this contact variety ‘Pidgin Sign English’ that ‘contact signing’ is a more accurate description. Such contact often results in significant individual use of features, so it is not a variety per se, and related to the current chapter, it may be more useful for understanding signing as an individuated, strategic and translingual practice (see Quinto-Pozos and Adam 2015).
- 2.
These signed systems attempt to mirror the structure of the ambient spoken language and are often used in education contexts (see e.g. Power et al. 2008).
- 3.
Support services for deafblind people are provided to vastly different degrees from place to place. The opportunities deafblind people have to come together professionally and socially, or to hone their skills in independent travel are thus highly varied. Edwards (2014) provides a thorough explanation of the ways in which language development and support service models can be intimately linked.
- 4.
We greatfully acknowledge funding by the Australian Research Council (DP160100142) to undertake much of this work.
- 5.
- 6.
In these focus groups each deafblind person was assigned a personal interpreter who relayed what was being said to/ from the group. This is standard practice for negotiating multiparty interactions involving tactile signers.
- 7.
For a discussion of regional variation in Auslan, see Johnstone and Schembri (2007).
- 8.
For example, NOTHING has a similar handshape and location, albeit different orientation and movement.
References
Agha, Asif. (2003). The social life of cultural value. Language and Communication, 23(3–4), 231–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(03)00012-0.
Agha, Asif. (2007). Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Allan, Keith. (2001). Natural language semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blommaert, Jan. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bono, M., Sakaida, R., Makino, R., Okada, T., Kikuchi K., Cibulka, M., Willoughby, L., Iwasaki, S., & Fukishima, S. (2018). Tactile Japanese sign language and finger braille: An example of data collection for minority languages in Japan. In: Proceedings of the 2018 LREC Conference. http://lrec-conf.org/workshops/lrec2018/W1/pdf/18027_W1.pdf.
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2016). Embodied sociolinguistics. In N. Coupland (Ed.), Sociolinguistics: Theoretical debates (pp. 201–16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107449787.010.
Burridge, Kate. (2010). Linguistic cleanliness is next to godliness. English Today, 26(2), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026607841000002.
Canagarajah, Suresh. (2012). Translingual practice: Global englishes and cosmopolitan relations. Abingdon: Routledge.
Checchetto, A., Geraci C., Cecchetto, C., & Zucchi, S. (2018). The language instinct in extreme circumstances: The transition to tactile Italian Sign language (LISt) by deafblind signers. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.357.
Collins, S., Petronio, K. (1998). What happens in Tactile ASL. In C.Lucas (Ed.), Pinky extension and eye gaze: Language use in deaf communities (pp. 18–37). Washington D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
Edwards, Terra. (2012). Sensing the Rhythms of Everyday Life: Temporal Integration and Tactile Translation in the Seattle Deaf-Blind Community. Language in Society, 41(1), 29–71. https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740451100090X.
Edwards, T. (2014). Language emergence in the seattle deafblind community. University of California, Berkeley. Unpublished PhD Thesis. http://search.proquest.com/openview/63cb352317bb90097011b9a64d105b52/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y.
Edwards, Terra. (2018). Sign-creation in the seattle deafblind community. Gesture, 16(2), 305–328. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.16.2.06edw.
Goebel, Zane. (2015). Language and superdiversity: Indonesians knowledging at home and abroad. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hepp, P. (1998). Taubblindheit—Doppplte Kommunikationsbehinderung. Die Bedeutung Der ‘Taktilen Gebärdensprache’ in Deutschland [Deafblindness—Double Communication Handicap. The meaning of tactile sign language in Germany]. Das Zeichen 12(45), 384–91.
Humphries, T., MacDougall, F. (1999/2000). “Chaining” and other Links: Making Connections Between American sign language and english in two types of school settings. Visual Anthropology Review, 15(2), 84–94.
Johnston, Trevor, & Schembri, Adam. (2007). Australian sign language (Auslan): An introduction to sign language linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keating, Elizabeth, & Mirus, Gene. (2003). American sign language in virtual space: Interactions between deaf users of computer-mediated video communication and the impact of technology on language practices. Language in Society, 32(5), 693–714. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404503325047.
Kusters, Annelies. (2017). Gesture-Based Customer Interactions: Deaf and Hearing Mumbaikars’ Multimodal and Metrolingual Practices. International Journal of Multilingualism, 14(3), 283–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2017.1315811.
Kusters, Annelies. (2019). Deaf and hearing signers’ multimodal and translingual practices: editorial. Applied Linguistics Review, 10(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2017-0086.
Kusters, Annelies, Spotti, Massimiliano, Swanwick, Ruth, & Tapio, Elina. (2017). Beyond languages, beyond modalities: Transforming the study of semiotic repertoires. International Journal of Multilingualism, 14(3), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2017.1321651.
Lucas, Ceil, & Valli, Clayton. (1992). Language contact in the American deaf community. San Diego: Academic Press.
Mesch, Johanna. (2001). Tactile sign language: Turn taking and question in signed conversations of deaf-blind people. Hamburg: Signum.
Mesch, Johanna. (2013). Tactile signing with one-handed perception. Sign Language Studies, 13(2), 238–263. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2013.0005.
Pennycook, A. (2016). Mobile times, mobile terms: The trans-super-poly-metro movement. In N. Coupland (Ed.), Sociolinguistics: theoretical debates (pp. 201–16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107449787.010.
Perera, N. (2018). Gesture and translanguaging at the tamil temple. In S. Ari, A. Elisabetta (Eds.), Making signs, translanguaging ethnographies: Exploring urban, rural and educational spaces. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Power, Des, Hyde, Merv, & Leigh, Greg. (2008). Learning English from Signed English: An impossible task? American Annals of the Deaf, 153(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.0.0008.
Quinto-Pozos, D., & Adamm, R. (2015). Sign languages in contact. In A. C. Schembri, C. Lucas (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and deaf communities (pp. 29–60). Cambridge University Press.
Raanes, Eli. (2011). Tegnrom Og Taktilt Tegnspråk. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift, 29, 54–86.
Swanwick, Ruth. (2017). Translanguaging, learning and teaching in deaf education. International Journal of Multilingualism, 14(3), 233–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2017.1315808.
Valentine, Gill, & Skelton, Tracey. (2008). Changing spaces: The role of the internet in shaping deaf geographies. Social and Cultural Geography, 9(5), 469–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649360802175691.
Willoughby, Louisa, Manns, Howard, Iwasaki, Shimako, & Bartlett, Meredith. (2014). Misunderstanding and repair in Tactile Auslan. Sign Language Studies, 14(4), 419–443. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2014.0014.
Willoughby, Louisa, Iwasaki, Shimako, Bartlett, Meredith, & Manns, Howard. (2018). Tactile sign languages. In Jan-Ola Östman & Jef Verschueren (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics 21 (pp. 239–258). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Willoughby, L., Manns, H., Iwasaki, S., Bartlett, M. (2020). From Seeing to Feeling: How Do Deafblind People Adapt Visual Sign Languages? . In: Allan, K. (eds) Dynamics of Language Changes. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6430-7_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6430-7_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-6429-1
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-6430-7
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)