Which societal structures/language contribute to the origins of British Sign Language variation

In his introduction to Margaret Deuchar’s book on British Sign Language, Michael Stubbs wrote in 1984 that ‘BSL provides a striking example of a topic about which clear and straightforward information is badly needed by educators and policy-makers, since there is widespread ignorance and confusion about what Deaf signing is’ (ix). Indeed, this remains true today, over two decades later.

British Sign Language was formally recognized as a language in the UK on March 18, 1993. As a language, BSL has much in common with other languages. Still, there is much about BSL that is unique, due to its innate difference from spoken languages. BSL is the primary language of the Deaf community in Britain, a community that lives and thrives in a larger society of hearing people, many of whom remain largely unaware of many of the issues in Deaf culture.

Societal structures, language user’s characteristics, and BSL variation

British Sign Language is a rapidly changing and growing language due to a number of factors. According to Deuchar, ‘just as we find variation in English, we also find it in BSL, at the same kinds of levels of the language, and linked to the same kind of social factors’ (130). This was reiterated more recently by Rachel Sutton-Spence and Bencie Woll, who assert that ‘just as there are variations according to region, social group membership and the social situation, so there are regional, social and situational differences in BSL’ (23).

Among the societal structures responsible for origins of BSL variation would be those related to education of the Deaf. According to Deuchar, the Deaf in Britain are unlike the Deaf in some other cultural minorities in that they have not lived in isolation. On the contrary, they have lived in many different parts of the country. Therefore, the places where they would come together as a meeting point would be institutions for Deaf individuals. These would primarily be educational institutions, particularly those that are specifically structured for members of the Deaf community.

Language user’s characteristics that are responsible for BSL variation include range of competence, age, response to setting (formal/informal), and level of social skills (Deuchar). Range of competence may vary from user to user, depending on individual ability as well as level of depth of exposure to BSL. Response to setting is also a highly individual characteristic; all individuals, including members of the hearing population as well as those in the Deaf community, respond with varying levels of comfort to different settings. Some individuals move comfortably between formal and informal settings, while others are inclined to feel more uncomfortable in less familiar surroundings (Deuchar; Sutton-Spence & Woll).

Geographical distance also accounts for much of the variation, affecting both differences and similarities in vocabulary. An example of this is an experiment Deuchar did regarding variation in number systems. The investigation was made in 1981 among Deaf adults in Lancaster. She found that ‘a certain variant of the number SIX (right index on left fist) was only used by people over the age of forty who had attended a school for the Deaf in NW England’. In this case she concluded that ‘both the social factors of age and schools seem to be significant’ (131).

Additional examples of user’s characteristics that are responsible for variation are offered by Brennan et al. Some pairs of BSL signs have identical manual components, and the only way to tell them apart is through ‘non-manual’ activity such as the facial gestures that accompany the manual components. For example, the signs ‘ENOUGH’ and ‘FED UP’ are distinguished only by facial gesture. Another example is that of the signs ‘SMART’ and ‘CAN’T BE BOTHERED’, which ‘make use of exactly the same action of the hands, but in the latter case a distinctive mouth pattern is used’ (Brennan et al. 2).

Sociolinguistics and Socio-Historical Characteristics in the BSL/language continuum

The sociolinguistics of a language is the study of linguistic and sociological values. It can also be described as the study of how that language functions within society and how it is affected. The sociolinguistics of Sign Languages is not unlike the sociolinguistics of any other languages. The same issues that affect other languages affect Sign Languages, although the issues may be expressed differently.

The fact that BSL is now officially accepted as a language is an important part of the history of BSL. It is partially responsible for changing the way BSL is perceived by the larger community. Other sociological and historical changes have occurred over time. Many of these are due to education. As Sutton-Spence and Woll point out: ‘BSL changed when schools started using it nearly 200 years ago, and again when it was banned in schools’ (35). Another factor that has affected the socio-historical change in BSL is technology, particularly television (Sutton-Spence & Woll 35).

Political correctness in BSL

As noted above, British Sign Language (and Sign Language in general) is like any other language in many aspects. This includes political correctness. ‘Political correctness has caught up with sign language for Deaf people. Gestures used to depict ethnic and religious minorities and homosexuals are being dropped because they are now deemed offensive’ (Mickelburgh). This is true of American Sign Language as well: ‘Traditional sign language words and letters for the use of the Deaf in America are being changed to be made more "culturally appropriate"’ (Davis).

However, it is true that many signs are still in use that may be considered as racist. One explanation for this is that Deaf communities often feel that hearing professionals try to impose their own values on Deaf culture, which is considered offensive and intrusive by many members of the Deaf community. ‘This is not concerned with the dangers of offending someone by mistake, but with signs that are considered unacceptable because of Deaf politics and Deaf pride’ (Sutton-Spence & Woll 249). Socially unacceptable language in BSL is similar to socially unacceptable language in general, and includes taboo signs linked to taboo topics, insults, and expletives.

Ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, and social networks

In America there are clear divisions between some ‘Black’ ASL dialects and some ‘White’ ASL dialects [largely due to segregation]. In Britain, however, ‘the variation in BSL between Black and White signers appears to be less marked’ (Sutton-Spence & Woll 27). Some explanations for this include the fact there were relatively few Black people in Britain until the 1950s. In addition, Black Deaf children attended ‘mixed’ Deaf schools, and were therefore less inclined to be divided by racial categories.

There is, however, a growing sense of identity among Black Deaf adults in Britain, and this may eventually lead to a more distinctive ‘Black’ dialect of BSL as time goes on (Sutton-Spence & Woll 28).

In contrast, the British Asian Deaf community relatively small. However, genetic deafness seems to be more common to British Asians, so as this segment of the Deaf community grows, its members may develop a dialect of their own as well.

Religion also has an effect on BSL, particularly the Roman Catholic and Protestant religions. ‘The signing of Deaf British Catholics is strongly influenced by Irish Sign Language because Irish monks and nuns have provided education for Catholic Deaf children....and Irish-trained priests serve the Catholic Deaf communities in Britain’ (Sutton-Spence & Woll 28). In addition, signers tend to have two variants of BSL, and will use them differently depending on whether they are communicating with people within their own religion, or with those outside of it.

It has also been noted that in some variations of Sign Languages, the differences between genders are markedly different. This has been attributed to the fact that often males and females are educated in separate institutions, and when they leave these institutions must learn how to communicate with each other. However, this is not the case with British Sign Language, where the differences in language between male and female members of the Deaf community are reported to be unimportant (Sutton-Spence 26).

Situational changes have an effect on BSL as they do on all other languages. Changes occur depending on the number of people the speaker is addressing; for example, when addressing a single individual as opposed to addressing an entire group. Changes also occur when the signer is addressing someone who does not have a strong grasp of BSL, either a member of the Deaf community who is foreign, or an English-speaker who is not a member of the Deaf community. Other situational changes also affect BSL, as when the signer is addressing strangers, or addressing small children (Sutton-Spence & Woll 31).

Conclusion

As we have seen, BSL is a natural human language that has much in common with spoken varieties. In a sociolinguistic format, we can see that, as in other languages, BSL varies by age, gender, ethnicity, religion, class, and geographical location.

A number of influences are responsible for British Sign Language variation, including societal structures such as educational institutions, as well as user’s characteristics such as range of competence, setting, and level of social development.

Although many positive changes have occurred since BSL was first formally accepted as an official language in 1993, much remains to be done. As Michael Stubbs wrote in 1984, ‘the case of BSL provides, in fact, one particular example of the incomprehension and rejection which attend non-standard dialects and minority languages of all kinds’ (Deuchar, ix).

In 2005, it can also be said that the case of BSL provides a strong example of how much can be accomplished by members of one minority community—the Deaf community—which manages to overcome all obstacles, and to make itself heard.

Reference List

Brennan, Mary, M. Colville and L. Lawson. 1984. Words in hand: a Structural analysis of the signs of British Sign Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh British Sign Language Research Project, Moray House College of Education.

Davis, Simon. 2000. ‘Language for Deaf goes PC in sign of the times’ in Telegraph News. http://www.arts.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml. Retrieved 06/07/2005.

Deuchar, Margaret. 1984. British sign language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Factsheet, British Deaf Association. www.bda.org.uk. Retrieved 06/07/2005.

Fischer, S. and P. Siple. 1990. Theoretical issues in sign language research. Vol. 1. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

Klima, Edward and U. Bellugi. 1979. The Signs of language. London: Harvard University Press.

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

Metzger, Melanie. 1999. Sign Language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality. Washington DC: Gallaudet University.

Mickelburgh, Renee and Rajeev Syal. 2004. ‘Limp wrists and slant eyes must go as political correctness demands new signs for the Deaf.’ http://www.arts.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml. Retrieved 06/07/2005.

Ree, Jonathan. 1999. I see a voice: Deafness, language and the senses—a Philosophical history. New York: Harper Collins.

Siple, Patricia and Susan D. Fischer, eds. 1991. Theoretical Issues in sign language research. Vol. 2. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

Stokoe, 2001. William C. Language in hand: Why sign came before speech. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.

Sutton-Spence, Rachel and Bencie Woll. 2000. The Linguistics of British Sign Language: an Introduction.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tannen, D. 1986. That’s not what I meant. New York: Ballantine Books.

 _______. 1989. Talking Voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.