Dialectal variation in Greek Sign Language (GSL): The emergence of markers and stereotypes

Klimis Antzakas¹, Dimitris Papazachariou² & Vasiliki Zacharopoulou³

University of Patras^{1, 2, 3}

The aim of this study is to present and encode the dialectal variables in Greek Sign Language (GSL) through the analysis of video recorded narratives of deaf informants from two different regions of Greece, Thessaloniki and Patra.

Our research follows the tendency of the most recent research models and encoding of dialectal variation in many different sign languages around the world (see among others: Woll et al. 1991; Stamp 2013; Stamp et al. 2015; Schembri et al. 2018; for BSL (British Sign Language), Johnston & Schembri 2007 for AUSLAN (Australian Sign Language), Lucas et al. 2001 for ASL (American Sign Language) and for LIS (Italian Sign Language) Geraci et al. 2011).

Data analysis showed that the handshape, the location, the movement and the direction (i.e. all these elements that form the morphological units -GLOSSES- in GSL) can show variation· variation that apparently relates with the geographical region of the signers, for example if they are from Patras or from Thessaloniki. Variables which we consider as phonetic/phonological ones.

Except the above phonetic/phonological variation, a lot of occurrences of morphological/lexical variation were also found, i. e. the existence of GLOSSES with the same meaning but with a completely different form.

In addition to differentiation of dialectal variables in terms of linguistic levels, dialectal variables identified in our data can be categorized under the following three different categories:

i) Variables — mainly lexical — with variants commonly used by signers in one geographical area, but not recognized by the signers of the other. An example of such case is the lexical variable “CHEESE” and its Thessalonikian variant, which wasn’t recognizable by the signers from Patras.

ii) Variables that function as stereotypes, following Labov (1972). Such an example is the GLOSS of Thessaloniki “ANIMALS”. The signers from Patras region are able to recognize the sign but they consider it as a variant of Thessaloniki, so they prefer not to use it.

iii) Variables used by signers of both regions, with clear quantitative differentiation between Patra and Thessaloniki. These variables are considered to be “markers”. A typical example is the lexical variable of the sign “ROAD” and its two variants.

References

Geraci, C., Battaglia, K., Cardinaletti, A., Cecchetto, C. Donati, C., Giudice, S. & E. Mereghetti. 2011. The LIS corpus project: a discussion of sociolinguistic variation in the lexicon. Sign Language Studies 11. 4: 528–574.

Johnston, T. & A. Schembri. 2007. Australian Sign Language: An introduction to Sign Language linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Lucas, C., Robert, B. & V. Clayton. 2001. Sociolinguistic variation in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Schembri, A., Stamp, R., Fenlon, J. & K. Cormier. 2018. Variation and change in English varieties of British Sign Language. In N. Braber & S. Jansen (eds.). Sociolinguistics in England, 165–188. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Stamp, R. 2013. Sociolinguistic variation, language change and contact in the British Sign Language (BSL) lexicon.University College London: London, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis.

Stamp, R., Schembri, A., Fenlon, J. & R. Rentelis. 2015. Sociolinguistic variation and change in British Sign Language number signs: Evidence of leveling? Sign Language Studies 15. 2: 151–181.

Woll, B., Allsop, L. & R. Sutton-Spence. 1991. Variation and recent change in British Sign Language: Final report to the ESRC. Bristol: University of Bristol.