Sign networks: Nucleated network sign languages and rural homesign in Papua New Guinea

Abstract

The sociodemographic typology of sign languages classifies them based on the characteristics and configurations of their users. When considering homesign and sign languages in rural areas, this typology needs further refinement. Here, I present new concepts to enable this. The study is based on fieldwork with twelve deaf people in Western Highlands, Papua New Guinea, and review of studies worldwide. Sign language communities can be mapped as sign networks. Using this mapping, I propose a new typological category for languages with one central deaf user and many fluent hearing signers: nucleated network sign language. I use sign base analysis to determine lexical consistency between unconnected deaf signers in Western Highlands. The high level of consistency among largely unconnected deaf people is explained by a regional sign network connecting deaf and hearing signers. This research emphasises the role of both deaf and hearing signers in sign language emergence and maintenance. (Sign languages, social networks, sign networks, typology, homesign, rural sign languages, Papua New Guinea)*

Lexical overlap in young sign languages from Guatemala

“…Researchers typically elicit signs using photos, drawings, or videos, both because signers may have limited literacy skills, and to avoid interference from the ambient spoken language (Safar 2021). In studies from Japan (Osugi et al 1999), Papua New Guinea (Reed 2021), Peru (Neveu 2019), Mexico (Hou 2016), and Nicaragua (Richie et al 2014), researchers have conducted lexical elicitation tasks with signers of young and emerging sign languages. The size and circumstances of these communities, as well as the density of deaf people within them, vary across these sites.…”

“…For example, in response to a photo of a tomato, a signer might produce the signs cut, eat and crush (see Figure 8). In some studies researchers selected one sign from the set of signs that signers provided based on conversational data or other elicitation sessions (Neveu 2019, Reed 2021). In the current study, signs were compared at the level of the "iconic prototype" (Sandler et al 2011) or "conceptual component" (Richie et al 2014).…”

“…Although experimental and computational studies afford more control over individual variables like quantity of interaction or number of communication partners, it is difficult to assess how well these networks approximate the social experiences of signers and speakers in the world. 7 While it is true that many signers may have difficult or limited interactions with hearing communication partners (Carrigan & Coppola 2017) and may not converge on shared lexicons (Richie et al 2014), this is not universal, as evidenced in case studies discussed in Nyst et al (2012) and Reed (2021). Signers who do not know an older sign language or participate in a deaf community are not all equally "isolated" from their communication partners.…”

“…In a study of dispersed individual deaf signers from Papua New Guinea mentioned above, Reed (2021) introduces the concept of a nucleated sign network. In this model deaf signers are distantly connected but do not interact frequently.…”

“…of deaf signers or when deaf signers constitute a substantive percentage of the population, however, recent studies document young sign languages in places with a lower density of deaf people (Nyst et al 2012;Green 2014;Hou 2016;Neveu 2019;Braithwaite 2020;Haviland 2020;Safar 2020;Reed 2021). The small number of fluent users and the spatial distribution of signers distinguishes these young "low-density" sign languages from some of the other documented young sign languages (e.g., NSL, ABSL, KK).…”