Keynote presenters

Variation occurs at all levels of linguistic use. Sign language linguistics has made considerable progress in understanding variation in how specific signs are used, within and across signed languages (Huddlestone et al., 2025; Lucas, 1995; Lucas et al., 2001; Schembri et al., 2009; Stamp et al., 2014, inter alia). However, within this domain, less is known about larger constructions in which target signs occur (Wilcox, 2014; Wilkinson et al., 2023). This talk aims to fill in the gaps by presenting a summary of two case studies of American Sign Language (ASL) based on the usage as observed in videos from the internet (Hochgesang et al., 2023; Hou et al., 2020).

The first case study investigates variation in sequential constructions in ASL that involve a family of ‘look’ signs in a large group of deaf signers (Hou, 2022; Wilkinson et al., 2023). Signers use LOOK/’reaction’ to signal stance-taking; this is captured in recurring fixed and schematic constructions. An example of a highly frequent fixed construction is PRO.1 LOOK OH.I.SEE meaning “I was like…” (Figure 1 below). This construction instantiates a schematic template with open slots for the experiencer of LOOK and the reaction that follows the verb. At the same time, some signers also use different ‘look’ signs to signal stance-taking, and these signs occur in similar fixed and schematic constructions.

The second case study examines variation in the discourse functions of HAPPEN in one ASL signer’s story of “Babysitting Blunder.” First, HAPPEN occurs as a new topic to pivot the audience to the beginning of a story, i.e. so what happened last night was that… Second, HAPPEN signals as a topic shift to inform the

audience about a subsequent event, one that may be unexpected or surprising, but not always (Figure 2 below, first token). Third, HAPPEN serves to answer a question or to offer information about the occurrence of a recently mentioned event (Figure 2 below, second token. Finally, HAPPEN marks probable or hypothetical events.

Deaf signing communities have been noted for linguistic variation. Both case studies demonstrate how studying a target sign in the context of larger constructions in usage informs us more about the patterns and functions of these constructions. They shed insight on the extent and depth of variation among individuals and groups – and takes us a step closer to documenting the grammar of signed languages.

“IS is like a virus.” “It’s addictive.” “It’s like black money.” These metaphors—circulating in activist discourse, online comments, artists’ satire, everyday conversation, and in my ethnographic research—capture widespread anxieties about the use of International Sign features within national sign languages. Metaphors such as contagion, addiction, and influence both express and shape ideologies of language change.

Metaphors are always partial. For example, the term influence suggests a powerful external force acting on a language, giving an impression of something imposed or overwhelming—yet it also obscures the agency of signers who actively borrow signs and signing styles that become influential. Online IS—particularly through Instagram Live—has amplified the circulation of these signs and styles, prompting concerns about the future of national sign languages.

These dynamics reveal two interconnected paradoxes. First, IS is valued for its flexibility and fluidity, but its widespread use and repetition introduce elements of fixity, with certain signs becoming embedded in national sign languages. As a result, a second paradox emerges: although IS was intended to bridge between languages and initially operated in the space between them, it increasingly reshapes the very languages it connects. The metaphors people use to talk about IS reflect and give shape to these paradoxes.