Hubbry Logo
Contact signContact signMain
Open search
Contact sign
Community hub
Contact sign
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contact sign
Contact sign
Contact sign
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A contact sign language, or contact sign, is a variety or style of language that arises from contact between deaf individuals using a sign language and hearing individuals using an oral language (or the written or manually coded form of the oral language). Contact languages also arise between different sign languages, although the term pidgin rather than contact sign is used to describe such phenomena.

Contact sign has been characterized as "a sign language that has elements of both [a] natural sign language and the surrounding [oral] language".[1]

Language contact

[edit]

Language contact is extremely common in most Deaf communities, which are almost always located within a dominant oral language ('hearing') culture.[2] Deaf people are exposed to the oral language that surrounds them, if only in visual forms like lip reading or writing, from early childhood. Within everyday life it is not uncommon for Deaf people to be in contact with oral languages.[3] Hearing parents and teachers of deaf children, if they sign at all, are usually second language learners, and their signing style will exhibit features of interference from the oral language. A mixing of languages and modes may also occur when interpreting between a spoken and a sign language.[3]

While deaf sign languages are distinct from spoken languages, with a different vocabulary and grammar, a boundary between the two is often hard to draw. A language 'continuum' is often described between signing with a strong sign-language grammar to signing with a strong spoken-language grammar, the middle-regions of which are often described as contact sign (or Pidgin Sign). In a conversation between a native signer and a second-language learner, both conversation partners may be signing at different ends of the spectrum. A blend that is often seen is vocabulary from the sign language signed in the word order of the oral language, with a simplified or reduced grammar typical of contact languages. We can recognize that the speaking habits of an English speaker learning French for the first time will differ from those of a native French speaker. The same thing happens when a hearing individual is learning a sign language.[4]

However, even a dialogue between two native deaf signers often shows some evidence of language contact. Deaf people in the United States may use a more English-like signing style in a more formal setting, or if unfamiliar with the interlocutor.[5]

Huenerfauth claims that Pidgin Signed English, as well as contact languages, can create accessibility benefits for users of sign language who have lower levels of written literacy.[6] While Cecil Lucas explains how contact also occurs when deaf signers modify their language for the sake of hearing people who are in the process of learning to use a sign language.[5]

Linguistic features of language contact

[edit]

Sign language researchers Ceil Lucas and Clayton Valli have noted several differences between the language contact arising between two sign languages and the contact phenomena that arise between a signed and an oral language.[7][8]

When two sign languages meet, the expected contact phenomena occurs: lexical borrowing, foreign "accent", interference, code switching, pidgins, creoles and mixed systems. However, between a sign language and an oral language, lexical borrowing and code switching also occur, but the interface between the oral and signed modes produces unique phenomena: fingerspelling (see below), fingerspelling/sign combination, initialisation, CODA talk (see below), TTY conversation, mouthing, and contact signing.

Long-term contact with oral languages has generated a large influence on the vocabulary and grammar of sign languages. Loan translations are common, such as the American Sign Language signs BOY and FRIEND, forming a compound meaning "boyfriend" or the Auslan partial-calque DON'T MIND, which involves the sign for the noun MIND combined with an upturned palm, which is a typical Auslan negation. When a loan translation becomes fully acceptable and considered as 'native' (rather than Contact Signing) is a matter over which native signers will differ in opinion.

The process appears to be very common in those sign languages that have been best documented, such as American Sign Language, British Sign Language and Auslan. In all of the cases, signers are increasingly bilingual in both a sign and a "spoken" language (or visual forms of it) as the deaf signing community's literacy levels increase. In such bilingual communities, loan translations are common enough that deeper grammatical structures may also be borrowed from the oral language, which is known as metatypy. Malcolm Ross writes:

Usually, the language undergoing metatypy (the modified language) is emblematic of its speakers' identity, whilst the language which provides the metatypic model is an inter-community language. Speakers of the modified language form a sufficiently tightknit community to be well aware of their separate identity and of their language as a marker of that identity, but some bilingual speakers, at least, use the inter-community language so extensively that they are more at home in it than in the emblematic language of the community.[9]

Some populations with a high proportion of deaf people have developed sign languages that are used by both hearing and deaf people in the community, such as Martha's Vineyard Sign Language, Yucatec Maya Sign Language, Adamorobe Sign Language and Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language. It is unclear what kind of language contact phenomena, if any, occur in such environments.

Fingerspelling

[edit]
Main article: Fingerspelling

One of the most striking contact sign phenomena is fingerspelling in which a writing system is represented with manual signs. In the sign languages with such a system, the manual alphabet is structurally quite different from the more 'native' grammatical forms, which are often spatial, visually motivated, and multilayered. Manual alphabets facilitate the input of new terms such as technical vocabulary from the dominant oral language of the region and allow a transliteration of phrases, names, and places. They may also be used for function words such as 'at', 'so' or 'but'.

Pidgin Sign English

[edit]

The phrase Pidgin Sign English[10] (PSE, sometimes also 'Pidgin Signed English') is often used to describe the different contact languages that arise between the English language and any of British Sign Language, New Zealand Sign Language, Auslan or American Sign Language. However, that term is falling out of favour. Pidgin Signed English generally refers to a combination of American Sign Language and the English language. Individuals who are hard of hearing, or become deaf later on in life, after using Spoken English, may often use a mixture of ASL and English, which is known as PSE. With PSE, it is common to sign most English words of a sentence, using English grammar and syntax, using ASL signs.[11][12]

When communicating with hearing English speakers, ASL-speakers often use PSE.[13][14] Various types of PSE exist, ranging from highly English-influenced PSE (practically relexified English) to PSE which is quite close to ASL lexically and grammatically, but may alter some subtle features of ASL grammar.[14] Fingerspelling may be used more often in PSE than it is normally used in ASL.

Reverse phenomenon by children of deaf adults

[edit]

Contact phenomena have been observed in the reverse direction, from a sign language to an oral language. Hearing adults who grew up in deaf signing households as children of deaf adults (CODAs) sometimes communicate with one another in spoken and written English and knowingly use ASL loan translations and underlying grammatical forms.[15]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Contact sign

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Contact sign, also known as contact signing, is a dynamic variety of visual-gestural communication that emerges from interactions between users of a , such as (), and a like English, blending lexical, morphological, and syntactic elements from both to facilitate mutual understanding. This form of signing is not a fully developed language but a contact phenomenon characterized by high individual and situational variation, often observed in the American Deaf community during conversations between Deaf signers and hearing individuals or in bilingual Deaf settings. The term "" was coined by linguists Ceil Lucas and in their 1992 publication in the American Deaf , replacing the earlier " Signed English" (PSE) to more accurately reflect its as a product of ongoing rather than a . Prior to this, PSE had been used since the 1970s to describe signing that incorporated ASL vocabulary with English word order and simplified grammar, but Lucas and Valli's analysis demonstrated that it does not meet the structural criteria of a true pidgin, such as reduced morphology or fixed conventions. Their work, based on empirical data from dyadic and triadic interactions, highlighted how exhibits inconsistent use of English-bound morphemes (e.g., plural markers like -s or past tense -ed) and omits some ASL nonmanual signals, resulting in a hybrid system that varies by context, participant proficiency, and domain. Key characteristics of contact sign include the predominant use of ASL lexical items arranged in English syntactic order, occasional mouthing of English words alongside signs, and the incorporation of English function words (e.g., articles, prepositions) that are in pure ASL. Unlike systems such as Signed Exact English (SEE), which rigidly follow spoken English , contact sign is more fluid and influenced by the signer's dominant , often shifting toward ASL in Deaf-Deaf interactions or toward English in educational or settings with hearing interlocutors. It plays a significant in the of Deaf communities, serving as a bridge in bilingual and bimodal environments, though prolonged exposure to ASL typically leads Deaf individuals to favor its full grammatical structure over contact varieties. Beyond ASL-English contact, similar processes occur between different sign languages, producing pidgin-like forms such as , used at global Deaf events, where signers draw on shared iconic gestures and borrowed lexicon to negotiate meaning without a common first language. These contact varieties underscore the adaptability of signed languages in multilingual contexts and inform linguistic research on code-mixing, borrowing, and the visual modality's unique contributions to language evolution.

Definition and Overview

Definition

Contact sign, also known as contact signing, is a non-standardized signing system that emerges from between a sign language, such as (ASL), and a spoken language, such as English. It blends elements of the sign language's manual features with structural and lexical aspects of the spoken language, including English word order and mouthing of spoken words alongside signs. This hybrid form is primarily used in bimodal bilingual contexts where signers and speakers interact, resulting in a communication that facilitates understanding between users of differing linguistic backgrounds. It exists on a continuum between the full sign language and the spoken language, varying by context and participants. Unlike full native sign languages like ASL, which possess complex grammatical structures including spatial syntax, classifiers, and non-manual markers, contact sign lacks such full grammatical complexity and is often regarded as a simplified communication system rather than a complete language. It exceeds mere isolated gestures or pantomime by incorporating systematic signing but exhibits high variability and reduced morphological and syntactic depth, with no native speakers in the linguistic sense. This distinction arises because contact sign does not evolve independently but depends on the ongoing influence of both languages involved. The core components of contact sign include a combination of manual signs borrowed from the base sign language, fingerspelling for proper names or specific terms, and mouth movements that mimic spoken language articulation, often simultaneously with signing. It typically emerges in situations of unequal bilingualism, such as interactions between deaf individuals proficient in a sign language and hearing non-signers who rely on spoken language, leading to ad hoc adaptations for mutual comprehension.

Historical Development

Contact sign, a hybrid form of communication blending elements of full sign languages with spoken language structures, developed amid the rise of oralist education in deaf schools during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The 1880 International Congress on Education of the Deaf in Milan endorsed oralism as the superior method for teaching deaf children, prioritizing speech and lipreading over sign language and leading to its suppression or prohibition in many institutions across and . This policy shift, influenced by figures like who advocated for deaf assimilation into hearing society, contributed to the development of various signed approximations of spoken languages in educational settings. In the United States, contact sign developed further during the through ongoing interactions in deaf communities and residential schools, where hearing educators often modified signing to approximate English . A pivotal conceptualization came in 1973 when linguist James C. Woodward introduced the term " English" to describe these varieties as intermediate systems on a continuum between ASL and English, based on observations of simplified , lexical borrowing, and in deaf-hearing dyads. The 1960s and 1970s saw significant advancement with the Total Communication philosophy, pioneered by Roy K. Holcomb, which encouraged multimodal approaches including signed English, gestures, and speech to maximize accessibility in education and counter the limitations of strict oralism. This approach, adopted widely in U.S. schools like Gallaudet University and California School for the Deaf, normalized contact signing as a practical tool for bilingual deaf students. Similar hybrid practices emerged in European deaf education under oralist influences, though primarily documented in ASL-English contexts. By the late 20th century, contact sign transitioned from a primarily imposed educational construct to a naturally occurring contact variety in informal deaf-hearing interactions, reflecting sociolinguistic adaptation rather than deliberate . Linguists Ceil Lucas and Clayton Valli's 1992 reframed it as "contact signing," arguing it represents dynamic outcomes rather than a true pidgin, drawing on data from diverse U.S. deaf settings to highlight its variability and functionality.

Linguistic Characteristics

Syntax and Grammar

Contact sign exhibits syntactic features that often mirror the linear of the surrounding , such as subject-verb-object (SVO) structures in English-influenced varieties, in contrast to the topic-comment prevalent in full sign languages like (ASL). This alignment facilitates communication in bilingual deaf-hearing contexts but deviates from the more flexible, spatially organized of native sign languages. Grammatical simplifications are characteristic of contact sign, including reduced reliance on spatial referencing for anaphora, diminished verb agreement through directionality, and limited use of classifiers to depict motion or location. Instead, signing tends toward sequential presentation of elements, prioritizing clarity for non-native signers over the simultaneous layering of manual and non-manual features found in established sign languages. These reductions arise from the hybrid of contact sign, blending elements to bridge modality differences between signing and speaking. The influence of is evident in the incorporation of function words and inflections, such as articles, prepositions, and tense markers, often conveyed through mouthing of spoken words or alongside signs. For instance, a signer might a sentence equivalent to "I go store" using ASL lexical signs in English SVO order, with mouthed articles or tenses like "the" or "yesterday" to specify absent in pure ASL . This mouthing reinforces spoken-like grammatical frames, enhancing mutual intelligibility in mixed interactions.

Lexicon and Borrowing

Contact sign primarily draws its lexicon from the base sign language, such as (ASL), forming vocabulary through established signs that convey efficiently within deaf communities. However, to facilitate communication with hearing interlocutors who may lack fluency in the full sign language, contact sign supplements this base with borrowed elements from the , notably English. These borrowings include fingerspelled words, which represent orthographic forms of English terms. Borrowing processes in contact sign involve direct adoption of spoken language elements through mechanisms like mouthing, where signers silently articulate English words alongside corresponding signs to bridge lexical gaps or emphasize meaning. New signs may also emerge by combining sign language parameters—such as handshape, location, and movement—with spoken phonemes via mouthing, creating hybrid forms that are more accessible in bilingual contexts. serves as a primary borrowing tool for proper names, technical terms, or loanwords absent in the base sign language, integrating into the stream of signing as a temporary or lexicalized element. These processes reflect the dynamic in deaf-hearing interactions, prioritizing over strict adherence to either language's norms. When vocabulary gaps arise for concepts not natively expressed in the base , contact sign employs descriptive compounds or gestures to approximate meaning, often layering these with English mouthing or for precision. For example, "computer" may be conveyed through "C-O-M-P-U-T-E-R" to directly the English term, or via an initialized sign combining a descriptive (such as mimicking ) with a "C" handshape. Alternatively, a compound like "THINK-MACHINE" might be used descriptively, supplemented by mouthing "computer" to resolve ambiguity. Such strategies highlight contact sign's flexibility, allowing signers to expand the contextually without formal codification.

Phonology and Non-Manual Features

Contact sign, as a variety emerging from interactions between sign languages like (ASL) and spoken languages such as English, exhibits phonological adaptations that reflect bimodal , primarily through the integration of spoken elements to facilitate comprehension across modalities. These adaptations often involve the of mouthing and alongside manual , rather than in the complexity of handshapes and movements typical of established sign languages. Non-manual features in contact sign heavily emphasize mouth movements, or mouthing, to convey equivalents alongside manual signs, which serves to bridge the gap between sign and spoken modalities but diminishes the use of traditional facial expressions for grammatical marking found in full sign languages. Mouthing typically involves partial or full articulation of English words, synchronized with the manual sign to disambiguate meaning or emphasize lexical items, particularly nouns and verbs. This reliance on mouthing arises from the contact situation, where signers accommodate hearing interlocutors by incorporating visible spoken elements, as observed in bimodal bilingual communities. For example, a signer might produce an ASL greeting sign while mouthing "hello" to align with and mutual understanding. Fingerspelling integration is a prominent phonological element in contact sign, frequently employed as a two-handed representation of for proper nouns, technical terms, or loanwords, contrasting with the one-handed system predominant in core ASL vocabulary. This practice often incorporates non-manual mouthing of the spelled word to reinforce phonological alignment with spoken English, and it can lead to where repeated fingerspelled forms evolve into simplified signs. In mixed audiences, names—such as spelling "John" with accompanying mouthing—enhances precision and , reflecting the contact-induced blending of manual and oral articulators. These features contribute to the by introducing borrowed elements, though their primary role remains sublexical.

Contexts of Use

Deaf-Hearing Interactions

Contact sign, also known as contact signing, emerges as a practical mode of communication in everyday interactions between deaf and hearing individuals, blending elements of sign languages like American Sign Language (ASL) with spoken language structures to bridge proficiency gaps. In family dynamics, it is commonly used by children of deaf adults (CODAs), who are hearing individuals fluent in sign language, to communicate with hearing relatives who have limited signing skills; for instance, deaf mothers often employ simultaneous communication—a form of contact signing— with hearing children, allocating around 70% of their input to this mixed mode while incorporating 22% spoken Dutch and 8% pure sign language of the Netherlands (NGT). Similarly, hearing parents of deaf children frequently mix sign and speech, creating unique variants tailored to their second-language signing abilities. In workplaces, contact signing facilitates deaf-hearing collaborations, where it may reflect adjustments based on perceived proficiency levels rather than a fully formed pidgin, as observed in professional settings involving interpreters or mixed teams. At social events, such as community gatherings, deaf and hearing participants negotiate communication through contact signing, leading to ad hoc adaptations like increased lexical borrowing for shared cultural concepts. One key advantage of contact sign is its ability to provide partial accessibility for hearing individuals learning to sign, enabling basic exchanges across hearing statuses and supporting bilingual exposure in families, where hearing children receive rich visual input with up to 79% sign visibility. However, it has limitations, including reduced expressiveness compared to full sign languages, as it often omits nonmanual markers essential to ASL grammar and bound morphemes from English, potentially hindering nuanced conveyance of meaning. These constraints can make contact sign less effective for complex discussions, where structural inconsistencies arise from its hybrid nature. Sociolinguistically, contact sign often develops naturally in situations of unequal , such as between native signers and hearing learners, resulting in variable forms influenced by interlocutors' backgrounds, , and age; for example, younger signers from hearing families exhibit less lexical variation in numeral signs, reflecting processes of leveling. This variability can lead to misunderstandings to inconsistent conventions, as the lacks standardized and relies on dynamic adjustments during interaction. Its roots trace back to historical patterns of in deaf communities, though contemporary uses emphasize spontaneous . In modern contexts, appears in casual video calls and remote conversations spurred by post-2020 work trends, allowing deaf and hearing members or colleagues to maintain informal connections through mixed signing and speech, often via platforms supporting .

Educational Settings

, often manifested as signed approximations of spoken languages, gained prominence in deaf education through Total Communication programs starting in the 1970s. These programs positioned as a pragmatic bridge between the prevailing oralist approaches, which emphasized speech and lip-reading without manual support, and the use of full sign languages. By integrating simultaneous speech with signed English structures, educators aimed to enhance while prioritizing English proficiency, particularly in preschool and early intervention settings where receptive scores improved significantly compared to oral-only methods. In contemporary bilingual deaf classrooms, contact sign continues to serve as a tool for bolstering English literacy among deaf and hard-of-hearing students, especially when (ASL) or and methods are not the primary focus. Systems like Signed Exact English (SEE), which systematically encode English grammar and vocabulary through manual signs, are employed to align visual input with spoken and written English, facilitating comprehension during instruction in subjects such as reading and . This approach is particularly noted in (IEP) discussions for students who benefit from structured visual representations of English to bridge gaps in literacy development. Critiques of contact sign in educational contexts center on its potential to impede the acquisition of full natural sign languages like ASL, as hearing educators often default to signed English variants that prioritize spoken language structures over native sign grammar. Research from Gallaudet University in the early 2000s demonstrated that deaf students with strong proficiency in ASL achieved significantly higher English literacy outcomes than those exposed primarily to contact signing or signed English systems, underscoring the cognitive and linguistic advantages of bilingualism rooted in a natural sign language foundation. These findings highlight ongoing debates about whether contact sign, by approximating rather than immersing in ASL, contributes to language delays and reduced fluency in the deaf community's primary language. Globally, analogous contact sign systems appear in , such as (MCE) variants in the , where Sign Supported English adapts (BSL) signs to follow spoken English for classroom instruction. These practices, implemented in schools to support bilingual development, mirror U.S. approaches by emphasizing English alignment but face similar critiques regarding their impact on native BSL proficiency.

International and Cross-Linguistic Contact

Contact sign in international contexts arises from interactions between signers of diverse national sign languages, leading to the emergence of that facilitate communication at global deaf events. Such cross-sign language contact has been documented since the early 20th century, particularly at the , which began in 1924 as the International Silent Games in and involved participants from multiple European nations. At these gatherings, signers from varying linguistic backgrounds, such as those using British Sign Language or Italian Sign Language, improvised shared signing through lexical borrowing and simplified structures, forming ad hoc pidgins without a standardized form. This process mirrors spoken language pidgins but relies heavily on visual and gestural elements inherent to sign modalities. Examples of such mixing are evident in regional settings where signers blend elements from various national sign languages to discuss policy or other topics, resulting in hybrid varieties that evolve per interaction. Similarly, in Asian regional conferences, contact signing draws on shared elements across sign languages, often prioritizing classifiers for concepts like spatial relations. These instances highlight how contact sign adapts to immediate communicative needs, drawing on common iconic motifs across sign languages. International Sign, a prominent example of such contact, is employed at these events but varies significantly by context. Globalization has accelerated the rise of contact sign in the 21st century, driven by online platforms and migration, which expose signers to diverse influences and foster hybrid forms. For instance, video-sharing sites and social media enable real-time interactions between users of different sign languages, leading to blended signing. Migration patterns, such as deaf individuals relocating within Europe or Asia for work or education, further promote these hybrids, yielding innovative lexicon for transnational topics like travel. This digital and migratory expansion has increased contact sign's prevalence, transforming it from event-specific to everyday global practice. Despite these developments, challenges persist in international contact sign, including a profound lack of standardization, which causes variability in lexicon and grammar across users and settings. Signers often rely on iconic gestures and classifiers to bridge gaps, such as depicting actions through pantomime when lexical equivalents differ, but this can lead to misunderstandings in complex discourse. Comprehension rates remain inconsistent, with studies showing lower mutual intelligibility in non-familiarized groups, underscoring the need for training in shared conventions.

Specific Varieties and Examples

Pidgin Signed English

Pidgin Signed English (PSE) is a contact signing variety that exists on a continuum ranging from structures closely resembling to those more aligned with English, primarily utilizing ASL signs alongside English syntactic order and grammatical features such as articles, plurals, and verb tenses, often supplemented by mouthing of English words. This form emerges in situations of limited between ASL users and English speakers, resulting in a reduced and mixed system that prioritizes basic communicative efficiency over full linguistic complexity. Linguist James Woodward first systematically described PSE in the early 1970s as part of a diglossic continuum in deaf communities, highlighting its variable morphology, such as inconsistent use of copulas (e.g., an uninflected sign for "true" or English-like forms) and aspect markers (e.g., verb reduplication for progressive or "finish" for perfective). The development of PSE traces to the mid-20th century in U.S. deaf communities, arising as a practical bridge during increased interactions between deaf ASL users and hearing English speakers, particularly in educational settings where oralist policies had previously suppressed signing but post-World War II shifts toward inclusion fostered hybrid forms. It often results from English-speaking adults or educators attempting to approximate ASL, leading to a system influenced by English grammar without acquiring ASL's full non-manual features or topicalization. By the 1970s, linguistic analyses, including Woodward's work, formalized its recognition, though later scholars like Lucas and Valli reframed it as "contact signing" to emphasize its situational variability rather than fixed pidgin traits. PSE finds common use in deaf-hearing interactions, including professional interpreting where signers adjust to hearing clients' expectations, beginner ASL classes to ease English speakers into signing, and media contexts like television broadcasts or online videos targeting mixed audiences. Unlike stable languages, it is highly variable based on the signer's proficiency in English and ASL, making it ideal for straightforward exchanges but less effective for nuanced or culturally specific discourse within deaf communities, where pure ASL predominates. In educational settings, it serves as a transitional tool for hearing parents or teachers communicating with deaf children, though its instability can limit long-term linguistic development. Representative examples illustrate PSE's blend of ASL lexicon and English structure; for instance, the question "What do you want?" is signed using the ASL signs for WHAT, YOU, and WANT in subject-verb-object order, potentially with English mouthing, contrasting ASL's more concise "" with raised eyebrows for interrogation. Similarly, "I go to the store" follows English word order with ASL signs for I, GO, TO, and STORE, differing from ASL's topic-comment form "STORE I-GO," and may include fingerspelling or mouthing for prepositions to clarify. These constructions prioritize accessibility for English-dominant viewers over ASL's spatial and visual .

International Sign

International Sign (IS) serves as a contact-based pidgin sign system that enables communication among deaf individuals from diverse linguistic backgrounds in international settings. Emerging as a practical solution to linguistic barriers, IS draws on shared visual and gestural resources rather than a fixed vocabulary or grammar, making it adaptable yet variable. It is particularly prevalent in formal global events where participants negotiate meaning through a blend of signs, gestures, and classifiers derived from multiple national sign languages. Key characteristics of IS include its reliance on iconic elements, where signs visually mimic concepts to enhance comprehensibility across language boundaries, and a topic-comment structure that organizes discourse by first establishing a topic before commenting on it. This system incorporates reduced mouthing—minimal oral components tied to spoken languages—and amplifies the use of gestures and non-manual features, such as facial expressions and body shifts, to convey nuanced information. Lexical items are often borrowed from dominant sign languages like American Sign Language or those of European varieties, but the overall form remains fluid, prioritizing visual clarity over standardization. IS originated organically in the mid-20th century, with early instances documented at international deaf gatherings starting in the , as deaf representatives sought ways to interact without a common . It gained structure through the (WFD), which formalized an version known as Gestuno in to support congresses and assemblies, though this evolved into the more dynamic contemporary IS by the . Today, IS is routinely used in high-profile such as WFD world congresses and forums on , where certified deaf interpreters often mediate to . Despite its utility, IS has notable limitations as it does not constitute a complete language, lacking native speakers, generational transmission, or a consistent lexicon estimated at only 2,000–3,000 signs. Its effectiveness depends heavily on the participants' backgrounds and prior exposure, leading to variability in comprehension rates that can drop below 80% for less experienced users or when discussing intricate topics like policy details or abstract philosophy. Communication often breaks down without shared context, relying on ad hoc adaptations that may result in information loss. Examples of IS in practice include its application at WFD conferences, where signers employ universal visual motifs—such as encircling hands to represent the for "environment"—to discuss global issues like , on gestures that transcend specific national languages. Similarly, during sessions on the Convention on the of Persons with Disabilities, IS facilitates multilingual panels by integrating classifiers to depict scenarios like "access to ," allowing participation despite linguistic diversity.

Regional Contact Varieties

Regional contact varieties of sign languages emerge in contexts where deaf communities interact with dominant spoken languages in specific national or regional settings, leading to hybrid forms that blend native sign structures with elements from local spoken tongues. In the United Kingdom, contact between British Sign Language (BSL) and English has produced varieties such as Sign Supported English (SSE), which incorporates English word order and lexical items into BSL signing, often through increased fingerspelling and mouthing of English words to facilitate communication with hearing interlocutors. Similarly, in South Africa, post-apartheid integration has fostered mixes between South African Sign Language (SASL) and English, particularly in educational settings where signed English variants employ SASL signs alongside English syntax and vocabulary, reflecting shifts from segregated schooling practices. In India, Indian Sign Language (ISL) interacts with Hindi, resulting in contact forms that integrate Hindi-derived mouthings for abstract or technical concepts, adapting to the bilingual environment of many deaf individuals. These varieties exhibit distinct characteristics shaped by local linguistic ecologies, including localized borrowings that prioritize regional spoken dialects over standardized forms. For instance, in BSL-English contact, signers often mouth regional English accents or dialects, such as those from , to convey nuanced meanings or align with hearing peers' speech patterns, enhancing without fully disrupting BSL's visual-spatial . In SASL-English hybrids, borrowings include English signs for administrative or educational terms, combined with SASL classifiers, creating a pidgin-like flexibility suited to post-apartheid multilingual classrooms. ISL-Hindi contact similarly features selective mouthing of Hindi words, particularly in northern , where signers articulate Hindi lexical items to specify cultural references, demonstrating how mouthings serve as a bridge in bimodal communication while preserving ISL's core phonology. The development of these regional contact varieties has been profoundly influenced by colonial histories and patterns of migration, which disrupted indigenous signing practices and imposed European linguistic models. In South Africa, colonial-era missionary schools introduced manual codes derived from British and Irish sign influences, later compounded by apartheid's , which fragmented SASL into varieties; post-1994 migration and desegregation accelerated English integration through urban mixing and policy reforms promoting . For ISL, 20th-century colonial legacies from British rule facilitated migration of deaf educators from , blending local home signs with English-Hindi hybrids, while internal migrations to urban centers in the mid-1900s spread Hindi-influenced mouthings across regions. BSL's contact with English traces to 19th-century industrialization and migration to industrial cities, where deaf workers adopted spoken elements for workplace interactions, echoing broader postcolonial dynamics of linguistic adaptation under imperial dominance. Today, these contact varieties remain vital in diverse communities for everyday deaf-hearing interactions, education, and media, yet they face underdocumentation, especially outside Western contexts. In non-Western settings like India and South Africa, limited lexical resources—such as ISL's dictionary of 10,000 words compared to Hindi's vast vocabulary—hinder full expression, exacerbated by reliance on English loanwords in globalized domains like technology. Research gaps persist in mapping diachronic changes and sociolinguistic variation, with few longitudinal studies on how migration continues to evolve these hybrids, underscoring the need for inclusive documentation to support language vitality.

Code-Switching and Mixing

In contact sign, involves sequential alternations between full (ASL) structures and English-influenced signing, while code-mixing, often termed code-blending in bimodal contexts, features simultaneous production of semantically equivalent signs and spoken or mouthed English elements. This dual process allows deaf and hearing interlocutors to navigate efficiently, leveraging the visual-manual and vocal-auditory modalities without the typical pauses seen in unimodal bilingual switching. Bimodal bilinguals, such as deaf ASL users interacting with hearing English speakers, rarely pause one modality to produce the other, instead favoring blends where approximately 95% of ASL signs co-occur with English words for semantic equivalence, particularly with verbs over nouns. Mechanisms of these shifts are fluid and context-dependent, with signers transitioning from pure ASL—characterized by topic-comment and classifiers—to contact sign forms incorporating English word order, prepositions, and mouthing, often within the same or turn. For example, in naturalistic from deaf ASL-English bilinguals, English-like features such as mouthing appear in about 74% of signs during formal interviews, while ASL classifiers dominate in spatial storytelling tasks, reflecting underlying dual grammars that enable seamless integration. These mechanisms are evident in bimodal productions where contact sign acts as a hybrid matrix, positively correlating English elements like initialized signs and negatively correlating ASL-specific like indices. Triggers for switching and mixing primarily stem from and communicative demands, where signers adapt to the interlocutor's proficiency—for instance, incorporating more explicit English mouthing and linear for hearing learners to enhance clarity and . Topic also plays a , with abstract or formal discussions prompting more English-influenced contact sign, while concrete spatial narratives elicit ASL dominance to convey depictions efficiently. In educational or mixed deaf-hearing settings, a deaf signer might shift mid-explanation from an ASL-based to contact sign by adding mouthed English prepositions (e.g., signing CAT JUMP ON TABLE with simultaneous mouthing), ensuring comprehension for hearing without disrupting flow. Sociolinguistic research from the highlights contact sign as a versatile matrix for bimodal switching, with studies showing variability tied to factors like early ASL exposure and educational background—hard-of-hearing signers, for example, exhibit higher rates of English mouthing than native deaf signers. Herbert and Pires (2017) analyzed naturalistic interactions among 20 deaf adults, finding that formal contexts amplify code-blending toward English , underscoring contact sign's in facilitating inclusive . These analyses build on foundational work by Lucas and (1992), who first documented such mixing as a hallmark of deaf , emphasizing its adaptive function in diverse interlocutor dynamics.

Influences on Native Signers

Children of deaf adults (CODAs), as native signers of (ASL), often adapt their signing styles when interacting with hearing peers, incorporating English-influenced elements that resemble contact sign. This reverse accommodation phenomenon involves blending ASL's spatial and topicalized with more linear, subject-verb-object structures typical of English, facilitating comprehension in mixed-language settings. For instance, CODAs may produce simultaneous sign and speech or use mouthing of English words alongside ASL signs, creating hybrid forms that prioritize clarity over pure ASL syntax. Developmental studies indicate that exposure to hearing-dominant environments can lead to a potential dilution of full ASL among CODAs, particularly as they enter and increase interactions with hearing peers. from the , such as Paul Preston's ethnographic work, highlights how this shift contributes to varying degrees of assimilation, where CODAs may reduce complex ASL features like classifier predicates in favor of simpler, English-like sequencing to bridge communication gaps. However, other studies demonstrate resilience in native ; for example, Ginger Pizer's of interactions shows that many CODAs maintain robust ASL proficiency when signing with deaf parents, even as their overall signing incorporates "Englishy" transliterations in broader contexts. Examples include using English in narratives, such as signing "I GO STORE BUY " instead of ASL's more topicalized "MILK STORE I BUY GO," in English-dominant settings. These adaptations contribute to broader language variation within deaf communities, as CODAs' contact-influenced signing introduces hybrid elements that influence peer interactions and . Such patterns, observed in bimodal bilingual contexts, underscore the dynamic interplay between native ASL and English exposure, fostering diversity in signing practices without eroding core .

Sociolinguistic Implications

Contact sign, emerging from interactions between deaf signers and hearing individuals, occupies a contested position in sociolinguistic within deaf communities. It is often championed as a practical tool for fostering inclusion in hearing-dominated environments, such as workplaces and services, by bridging communication gaps without requiring full in a native sign language. However, critics argue that its reliance on spoken structures can undermine the preservation of indigenous sign languages like American Sign Language (ASL) or Auslan, potentially eroding cultural linguistic identity and reinforcing hearing-centric norms. This debate has influenced language rights policies, particularly following the 2006 adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which mandates recognition of sign languages as equivalent to spoken languages in Article 2 and promotes their use in education and life under Article 24, though contact sign's hybrid nature raises questions about its alignment with these protections. For instance, UNCRPD implementations in signatory countries emphasize native sign language vitality, positioning contact sign as a supplementary rather than primary mode to avoid diluting official recognitions. Within deaf circles, perceptions of contact sign reveal a tension between utility and stigma, with some viewing it as an inferior or "not real signing" form that signals incomplete cultural affiliation. This stigma stems from associations with oralist models that prioritize over full manual expression, leading to judgments that contact sign users are less competent in native varieties. Despite this, its practical value is acknowledged in advocacy efforts and accessibility initiatives, where it enables broader participation in deaf-led discussions and resource distribution, enhancing community empowerment without alienating hearing allies. Policy integrations of contact sign illustrate its role in balancing inclusion with , as seen in where the Sign Language Interpreters Association (ASLIA) guidelines for educational interpreting incorporate contact varieties to support diverse classroom needs while prioritizing Auslan proficiency. These standards ensure interpreters adapt to contact sign in transitional settings, promoting equitable access without compromising native language curricula, and reflect broader UNCRPD-aligned commitments to multimodal communication. Research on contact sign's sociolinguistic implications remains skewed toward Western contexts, highlighting gaps in understanding non-Western varieties, such as those arising in African or Asian deaf communities where local sign languages intersect with colonial spoken languages. Post-2020, the rise of digital platforms has amplified these varieties' role in remote communication, yet studies lag in examining their evolution in video-based deaf networks, underscoring the need for inclusive, global investigations equitable digital policies.

References

  1. https://ssl.gallaudet.edu/gupress/excerpts/SLIC.pdf
  2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780124580459500082
  3. https://www.lifeprint.com/asl101/pages-layout/contactsigning.htm
  4. http://intrpr.info/library/woodward-characteristics-of-pidgin-english.pdf
  5. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26203079
  6. https://www.verywellhealth.com/deaf-history-milan-1880-1046547
  7. https://sk.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/the-sage-deaf-studies-encyclopedia/chpt/deaf-education-history-milan-1880
  8. https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/issues/alexander-graham-bell-role-oral-education/
  9. https://sk.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/the-sage-deaf-studies-encyclopedia/chpt/education-history-total-communication
  10. https://ssl.gallaudet.edu/gupress/excerpts/LAADC.pdf
  11. https://www.rit.edu/ntid/sites/rit.edu.ntid/files/pd/Symposium_2016/BKKhalsa_1300_1115.pdf
  12. https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/5130/
  13. https://brill.com/display/title/23269
  14. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-language-contact/multilingualism-and-language-contact-in-signing-communities/651F6CF28E844C3783FC284C5448FF46
  15. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/josl.12522
  16. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1535233/1/R%20E%20J%20ADAM%20PhD%20FINAL%20version.pdf
  17. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231941675_Sign_language_contact_and_interference_ASL_and_LSM
  18. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0094053
  19. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED111119.pdf
  20. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/jehdi/vol3/iss2/5/
  21. https://www.gallaudet.edu/documents/cummins_asl-eng.pdf
  22. https://www.ssc.education.ed.ac.uk/courses/deaf/doct05a.html
  23. https://www.deaflympics.com/icsd/history
  24. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011724-121636
  25. https://wfdeaf.org/international-sign-training-macau-hosted-wfd-regional-secretariat-asia/
  26. https://wfdeaf.org/wp-content/uploads/Perspectives-on-the-Concept-and-Definition-of-IS_Mesch-FINAL.pdf
  27. https://ssl.gallaudet.edu/gupress/excerpts/ISIGN.pdf
  28. https://languagest.com/understanding-pidgin-signed-english-pse-bridging-two-languages/
  29. https://wasli.org/sign-language-interpreters/about-the-international-sign/
  30. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233659867_Interpreting_into_International_Sign_Pidgin_An_analysis
  31. https://nagish.com/post/impact-of-international-sign-language
  32. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13670069990030040401
  33. https://africansignlanguagesresourcecenter.com/south-africa/
  34. https://spil.journals.ac.za/pub/article/download/55/80
  35. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=lux
  36. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/education/news/realising-the-importance-of-indian-sign-language-dictionary/articleshow/86221166.cms
  37. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.818753/full
  38. http://www.lingref.com/isb/4/051ISB4.PDF
  39. https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/PLSA/article/download/4054/3789/0
  40. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13670050.2018.1517723
  41. https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/PLSA/article/view/4054
  42. https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/d0018d04-7c84-4a6d-adcb-e0696e98d14c/content
  43. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-persons-disabilities
  44. https://maartjedemeulder.be/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/the-uncrpd-and-slps.pdf
  45. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4168230
  46. https://gallaudetupress.manifoldapp.org/system/actioncallout/6/b/4/6b4a1231-fee5-487b-82fc-a08833def55c/attachment/01697aa2ed59057cc2ae0d3cffca2636.pdf
  47. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/sociolinguistics-and-deaf-communities/sign-languages-in-contact/190CF960A7D639E2A6BAE180EC8EFB1E
  48. https://aslia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Educational-Interpreting-Policy-2018.pdf
  49. https://www.deafnessforum.org.au/wp-content/uploads/documents/research_publications/guidelines_for_the_employment_of_sign_language_interpreters_in_educational_settings.pdf
  50. https://utppublishing.com/doi/10.1558/sols.v1i1.145
  51. https://www.[microsoft](/page/Microsoft).com/en-us//wp-content/uploads//08/Social-App-Accessibility-for-Deaf-Signers.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.