Irish Sign Language

Abstract

A comprehensive, empirically driven, description of Irish Sign Language illustrated by the Signs of Ireland corpus.

Full text

Irish Sign Language
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 1 10/04/2012 11:00

LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 2 10/04/2012 11:00

Irish Sign Language
A Cognitive Linguistic Account
LORRAINE LEESON AND JOHN I. SAEED
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 3 10/04/2012 11:00

© Lorraine Leeson and John I. Saeed, 2012
Edinburgh University Press Ltd
22 George Square, Edinburgh
www.euppublishing.com
Typeset in 10/12 Times New Roman
by Servis Filmsetting Ltd, Stockport, Cheshire, and
printed and bound in Great Britain by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 978 0 7486 3823 9 (hardback)
ISBN 978 0 7486 5629 5 (webready PDF)
ISBN 978 0 7486 5650 9 (epub)
ISBN 978 0 7486 5630 1 (Amazon ebook)
The right of Lorraine Leeson and John I. Saeed
to be identied as author of this work
has been asserted in accordance with
the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 4 10/04/2012 11:00

Contents
List of gures and tables ix
Preface x
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Introducing Irish Sign Language 1
1.2 The Signs of Ireland corpus 2
1.3 A cognitive perspective on Irish Sign Language 4
1.3.1 Linguistic knowledge is encyclopaedic and non-
autonomous 6
1.3.2 Linguistic meaning is perspectival 6
1.3.3 Linguistic meaning is dynamic and exible 7
1.3.4 Linguistic knowledge is based on usage and
experience 7
1.3.5 How does this link to our discussion of ISL? 7
1.4 The structure of this book 8
1.5 Some notes on transcription conventions used in this volume 9
2 What Is a Signed Language? 13
2.1 Introduction 13
2.2 The design features of language: do they hold for signed
languages? 13
2.3 What is unique about signed languages? 17
2.4 Summary 27
3 The Historical and Social Context 28
3.1 Introduction 28
3.2 Did someone ‘invent’ ISL? 28
3.3 Schools, policy and language 30
3.3.1 The rst schools for the Deaf in Ireland 30
3.3.2 Protestant schools 32
3.3.3 The Catholic response 32
3.4 Educational policy and sign language 36
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 5 10/04/2012 11:00

vi Irish Sign Language
3.5 ISL and other signed languages 42
3.5.1 ISL in Australia 43
3.5.2 ISL in South Africa 44
3.5.3 ISL in the UK 45
3.6 Who uses Irish Sign Language today? 46
3.7 The social status of ISL users 48
3.8 Variation within ISL 50
3.8.1 Gender and age variation in ISL 50
3.8.2 Geographical variation 51
3.9 Children’s acquisition of ISL 52
3.10 The ocial status of ISL 56
3.11 Summary 57
4 The Phonetics and Phonology of ISL 60
4.1 Introduction 60
4.2 Phonetics 60
4.3 The phonetics of ISL 61
4.4 The phonology of ISL 70
4.5 Manual signs 70
4.5.1 Handshape 72
4.5.2 Location 76
4.5.3 Movement 77
4.5.4 Orientation 78
4.6 Non-manual features 79
4.6.1 Beyond the hands 79
4.6.2 Mouthings and mouth gestures 81
4.7 Constraints and phonological processes 85
4.7.1 Perceptual constraints on ISL 86
4.7.2 Production constraints on ISL 86
4.8 Summary 88
5 Inectional and Derivational Morphology 90
5.1 Introduction 90
5.2 Words and morphemes 90
5.2.1 Loci 92
5.3 Grammatical morphemes 95
5.4 Morphological verb classes in ISL 96
5.5 Number 100
5.6 Aspect 103
5.7 Classier predicates 108
5.7.1 Whole entity-CL stems 110
5.7.2 Extension-CL stems 111
5.7.3 Handle entity-CL stems 112
5.7.4 Body-CL stems 113
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 6 10/04/2012 11:00

Contents vii
5.8 Compounds 115
5.8.1 Features of ISL compounds 115
5.8.2 Constraints on compound formation 118
5.9 Manner 122
5.10 Summary 123
6 The ISL Lexicon 125
6.1 Introduction 125
6.2 The ISL lexicon 125
6.3 The established lexicon 127
6.3.1 English-inuenced signs 127
6.3.2 Borrowed signs 131
6.3.3 Iconic signs 131
6.4 The productive lexicon 134
6.5 Gestural substrate 139
6.6 Male and female varieties 143
6.7 Summary 147
7 Syntax 149
7.1 Introduction 149
7.2 The building blocks of syntax: nouns, verbs and other
categories 150
7.2.1 Noun phrases 150
7.2.1.1 Names 150
7.2.1.2 Nouns 151
7.2.1.3 Pronouns 154
7.2.2 Verbs 158
7.2.3 Adjectives and adverbs 159
7.2.4 Prepositions 160
7.3 Sentence types: statements, questions and imperatives 161
7.4 Negation 163
7.5 Time in the sentence 165
7.6 Constituent order and simultaneity 168
7.7 Complex sentences 171
7.7.1 Co-ordination 171
7.7.2 Clause combining 172
7.8 Conclusion 174
8 Discourse 175
8.1 Introduction 175
8.2 What we know about discourse in signed languages 175
8.3 Managing conversational interaction 176
8.3.1 Gaining attention 176
8.3.2 Cultural and linguistic politeness 178
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 7 10/04/2012 11:00

viii Irish Sign Language
8.4 Discourse cohesion 180
8.4.1 Embodiment and perspective: signer’s viewpoint is
privileged 180
8.4.2 Event spaces 182
8.4.3 Deictic systems 184
8.4.3.1 Reference shifting in action and dialogue 184
8.4.3.2 Body partitioning 187
8.4.4 Explicit establishment of discourse topics 188
8.4.5 Specic time reference in discourse 190
8.4.6 Discourse use of connectives 191
8.5 Simultaneous constructions and discourse structure 193
8.5.1 Foregrounding and backgrounding strategies 193
8.5.2 Marking episodes: in-lap 196
8.5.3 Marking emphasis: mirroring 197
8.5.4 Buoys 198
8.5.4.1 Fragment buoys 198
8.5.4.2 Theme buoys 201
8.5.4.3 List buoys 204
8.5.4.4 Pointer buoys 206
8.6 Summary 207
9 Towards a Cognitive Account of Signed Languages 209
9.1 Introduction 209
9.2 Embodiment 209
9.3 Lexical concepts and real-world knowledge 210
9.4 Metonymy and metaphor 211
9.5 Mental spaces 216
9.6 Conceptual blending 218
9.7 Conclusion 222
References 224
Index of Names 238
General Index 241
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 8 10/04/2012 11:00

Figures and Tables
Figures
Figure 1.1 Screen shot of SOI example in ELAN (Fiona (36) Frog
Story (Waterford)) 4
Figure 1.2 Results of search for the lexical sign DEAF across forty-
seven narratives in the SOI corpus 5
Figure 2.1 Signing space 14
Figure 3.1 Ogham inscription 30
Figure 3.2 Major inuences on the development of ISL in the
nineteenth century. (After Suzanne Bussiere, personal
communication, January 2010) 35
Figure 4.1 ISL handshapes 63
Figure 4.2 The HamNoSys inventory: (a) handshapes, (b) thumb
combinations, (c) nger specications, (d) nger parts,
(e)nger base orientation, (f) nger parts, denotations 73
Figure 4.3 ISL-specic handshapes? (a) ISL handshape not found in
HamNoSys, (b) handshape not noted before in ISL (but
used in signs like BOY) 76
Figure 4.4 Mouthings and mouth gestures as used by Deaf women in
the SOI corpus 83
Figure 4.5 Mouth actions (combined) used by ISL signers aged 55
years and above 84
Figure 5.1 Morphological verb classes 100
Figure 5.2 Features of ISL compounds 120
Figure 5.3 Loan translation or ‘calque’ compounds in ISL 121
Figure 6.1 Overview of the ISL lexicon 127
Table
Table 4.1 Articulatory descriptors for non-manual features in Irish
Sign Language (following Nonhebel, Crasborn and van der
Kooij’s description of ECHO Project conventions (2004)) 80
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 9 10/04/2012 11:00

Preface
This book seeks to provide a description of Irish Sign Language (ISL) based
on how the language is used by Deaf ISL users from across Ireland. Irish
Sign Language is a visual-gestural language used by some 6,500 Deaf people
across the island of Ireland and an estimated 65,000 hearing signers. ISL is
quite distinct in its structure and history from its near neighbour, British Sign
Language (BSL). The description of ISL is still in its infancy but the authors
have had the advantage of drawing on one of the largest multi-modal corpora
of a signed language in the world, the Signs of Ireland corpus, described in
Chapter 1. Using this corpus we oer a description of the phonetics, pho-
nology, morphology, syntax and discourse that is grounded in a cognitive
linguistic account, the rst of its kind for Irish Sign Language. This approach
promises new insights into the role within ISL of gesture, spatial models, ico-
nicity, metaphor and metonymy. The book’s accompanying DVD presents
examples used in the discussion in a realistic dynamic form.
We have attempted, as far as space will allow, to set this description
against the social and historical context of the language. We trace aspects
of the history of the language, outlining some of the inuences that other
signed and spoken languages have had, and tell the story of how ISL has
inuenced other signed languages including Australian Sign Language and
South African Sign Language. The volume also highlights the link between
educational policy and language outcomes for ISL users in historical and
contemporary settings.
We would like to thank the following people for their help, support,
insights, encouragement and enthusiasm in making this book possible:
Mr Robert Adam, Prof. Brita Bergman, Ms Suzanne Bussiere, Br Martin
Byrne, Dr John Bosco Conama, Dr Onno Crasborn, Mr Senan Dunne,
Ms Angela Fitzgerald, Ms Julianne Gillen, Ms Meryl Glaser, Ms Carmel
Grehan, Prof. Terry Janzen, Dr Je Kallen, Prof. Jim Kyle, Prof. Barbara
LeMaster, Prof. David Little, Ms Teresa Lynch, Mr Patrick Matthews,
Dr Patrick McDonnell, Ms Suzanne Militzer (now Mohr), Dr Anna-
Lena Nilsson, Dr Brian Nolan, Dr Rosemary Orr, Sr Renee Rossouw, Dr
Adam Schembri, Dr Rachel Sutton-Spence, Ms Gudny Thorvaldsdottir, Dr
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 10 10/04/2012 11:00

Preface xi
Myriam Vermeerbergen, Sr Margaret Wall, O.P., Profs Sherman and Phyllis
Wilcox, Prof. Erin Wilkinson and Prof. Bencie Woll.
We are indebted to the forty Irish Deaf people who kindly participated in
the Signs of Ireland digital corpus project and without whom this book would
not be possible: Nicholas Banville, Frankie Berry, Eilish Bradley, Bernadette
Costello, Louise Deane, Michael Doran, Fergus Dunne, Noeleen Dunne,
Fiona Ennis-Regan, Geraldine Fitzgerald, Orla Grehan, Marion Hayes, Eric
Hennessey, Sean Herlighy, James Horan, Mary King, Catherine Landers,
Kevin Lynch, Michelle MacLaughlin, Willie John Mariga, Fergus Massey,
Linda McLoughlin, Marion Moloney, Sarah-Jane Moloney, Annie Murphy,
Peter Murray, Mary O’Connor, Patrick O’Rourke, Rebecca O’Meara,
Lianne Quigley, Noreen Ryan, Laurence Stanley, Valerie Stanley, Margaret
Sutton, Alice Walsh, Derek Walsh, Michael Walsh, Patrick Whelan, Helen
Winters and Caroline Worthington.
We also owe special thanks to the annotators of this data: Deirdre Byrne-
Dunne, Cormac Leonard and Alison Macdu for their years of eort. We
also thank colleagues at the Max Planck Institute, Nijmegen, for their work
in creating and supporting ELAN, which made the SOI project possible.
We acknowledge the support of Trinity College Dublin’s Arts and Social
Sciences Benefaction Fund, which funded the purchase of a video camera
and covered some of the costs associated with the SOI data collection and
annotation.
We thank those authors, editors and publishers who have supported this
publication by giving permission to reproduce illustrations and images in this
document:
Example 4.10, from Patrick A. Matthews (1996a), with permission, IRAAL.
Example 5.9, from Patrick A. Matthews, with permission.
Example 5.10, from Patrick McDonnell (1996), with permission.
Example 5.12, from Patrick McDonnell (1996), with permission.
Example 6.8(a), from Leeson and Grehan (2004), with permission.
Example 6.9, from Leeson and Grehan (2004), with permission.
Example 6.10, from Carmel Grehan, with permission.
Example 8.5, Julianne Gillen interview, SIGNALL II project, Leonardo
da Vinci (2008–10), from Interesource Group (Ireland) Limited, with
permission.
Figure 2.1, from Patrick A. Matthews (1996a), with permission, IRAAL.
Figure 3.2, from Suzanne Bussiere, with permission.
Figure 4.1, from Patrick A. Matthews (2005), with permission, Forest Books.
Figure 4.2F, adapted from Thomas Hanke, Hamburg University, with per-
mission (see <http://www.sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de/projekte/hamnosys/
hamnosyserklaerungen/englisch/contents.html>).
Figure 4.3, from Thomas Hanke, Hamburg University, with permission.
Figure 4.4 from Susanne Militzer (2009), with permission.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 11 10/04/2012 11:00

xii Irish Sign Language
Figure 4.5 from Susanne Militzer (2009), with permission.
Figure 5.1 from Patrick McDonnell (1996), with permission.
We owe special thanks to Haaris Sheikh (Interesource Group (Ireland)
Limited) and Gillian Quinlan for their assistance in preparing photographic
data, images and video clips for this volume and accompanying DVD.
John would like to thank Joan Maguire for her support and Carmel
Grehan for her skill and patience as a teacher of ISL. Lorraine would like
to thank the Leeson clan for their patience, encouragement and support and
Prof. Bencie Woll for instigating the desire to learn more about how ISL
works. A very special vote of thanks goes to the ever-enthusiastic Haaris.
Finally, both authors give thanks to the community of ISL users who help
them do this – THANK YOU.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 12 10/04/2012 11:00

1 Introduction
1.1 Introducing Irish Sign Language
Irish Sign Language (ISL) is the language used by an estimated 5,000 Deaf
people in the Republic of Ireland and some 1,500 signers in Northern Ireland.
It is neither Irish (Gaeilge) on the hands nor English in manual form. ISL
is a natural human language that has evolved over time and is distinct also
from the signed languages of other countries that share English as a spoken
language, such as Britain, where British Sign Language (BSL) is used, and
the United States of America, where American Sign Language (ASL) is used.
Irish Sign Language has no formal standing in law in the Republic of Ireland
although it has been mentioned in the Education Act 1998. In contrast, Irish
Sign Language along with British Sign Language is recognised by the British
Government under the auspices of the Good Friday Agreement.1 As we shall
see in Chapter 3, the history of modern Irish Sign Language can be traced
back to the early nineteenth century. While we know that some variety of
signed language was used before that in Ireland, there is little documentation
available to us to support any meaningful recreation of what that language
looked like. However, with the establishment of the rst schools for the deaf
in the early 1800s, communities of Deaf signers formed and documentation
began to grow, upon which we can draw in tracing the development of ISL
and the inuences on it. As we shall see, these inuences include BSL, French
Sign Language (Langue des Signes Française, LSF), spoken English, French,
and cued speech and gesture. While the late-twentieth-century Irish Deaf
community made eorts to resist inuences from BSL, what we nd is that
it has in reality been a main source of inuence on ISL for at least 200 years.
The link between these varied inuences is educational policy: both BSL
and LSF were linguistic instruments in the establishment in Ireland of the
rst Protestant and Catholic schools for the deaf, respectively. These lan-
guages, though not recognised as having full linguistic status in the nine-
teenth century, were modied by educationalists to become carriers for
English via a system called signed English. With the suppression of signed
language in the twentieth century, a system of teaching through speech called
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 1 10/04/2012 11:00

2 Irish Sign Language
oralism was implemented, which, as we shall see in Chapter 3, had devastat-
ing consequences for many. Another result of this was the introduction of
English mouth patterns, or mouthings, into ISL. For some students, mostly
girls in St Mary’s School for Deaf Girls, in Cabra, Dublin, a system called
cued speech was introduced and remnants of that system have permeated ISL
and have become one element of women’s signing.
The fact that ISL was suppressed during the strong oralist period in the
mid twentieth century and the fact that more than 90 per cent of Irish deaf
children are born to parents who are not deaf has meant that the transmission
pathways to acquiring ISL became more complex. In the absence of Deaf
adult caregivers who were themselves ISL users, children draw on gesture
to bootstrap their language development, sometimes supported by spoken
language. Despite this atypical environment for language acquisition and
the concurrent lack of institutional status associated with its use, ISL has
survived and thrived. It has also been a language of inuence in other coun-
tries where Irish missionaries and educators travelled alongside the British
Empire’s civil service. Irish missionaries travelled to British colonies to
provide education, medical care and chaplaincy services for the military and
civil servants who administered the colonies, as well as embarking on mis-
sionary endeavours. As a result, Irish religious orders and some lay teachers
engaged in deaf education travelled to Australia and South Africa bringing
with them Irish Sign Language, with discernible inuences still evident in
some varieties of Australian and South African Sign Languages.
1.2 The Signs of Ireland corpus
This book aims to provide a linguistic snapshot of Irish Sign Language as
used at the turn of the twenty-rst century in the Republic of Ireland. We
do this by building on linguistic analysis of the language over the past two
decades by a relatively small number of people, and we emphasise that we
are still in the early days of understanding the detail of many parts of this
linguistic system, particularly at the level of syntax and discourse structure.
At the same time, this study of ISL is boosted by the availability of a digital
multi-modal corpus of Irish Sign Language called the Signs of Ireland (SOI)
corpus. The SOI corpus is part of the Languages of Ireland programme at the
School of Linguistic, Speech and Communication Sciences, Trinity College
Dublin (TCD). It comprises video data from Deaf users of ISL from across
the Republic of Ireland in digital form, and has been annotated using ELAN,
a software program developed by the Max Planck Institute, Nijmegen. The
corpus is housed at the Centre for Deaf Studies, TCD.
The Signs of Ireland corpus consists of data from forty signers aged
between 18 and 65 years, at time of lming, from ve locations across the
Republic of Ireland: Dublin, Wexford, Waterford, Cork and Galway. It
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 2 10/04/2012 11:00

Introduction 3
includes male and female signers, all of whom had been educated in schools
for the deaf in Dublin, St Mary’s School for Deaf Girls and St Joseph’s
School for Deaf Boys. This allows for comparison between male and female
sign variants, insofar as they were captured in the data, as well as gendered
generational issues in areas such as mouthing, ngerspelling and lexical
choice. In building the corpus, we deliberately decided to include no signed
language teachers, other than a rst signer who served as a pilot data set. The
aim was to avoid the collection of data from signers who had rm notions of
correct or pure ISL. Instead, the corpus aims to capture ISL in its authentic
form as used by ordinary Deaf people from across the country in order to
reveal how the language is really used and help provide students with data
that are far removed from the classroom. Users of the corpus can access a
range of signing styles, age groups and content type that has not been previ-
ously available. While all the informants use ISL as their preferred language,
only a minority are native signers from Deaf families. The majority are not
native signers, but several have Deaf siblings. All forty signers use ISL as
their rst or preferred language.
All of the data were collected by a female Deaf researcher, Deirdre Byrne-
Dunne, in 2004 and annotated by Ms Byrne along with Cormac Leonard
and Alison MacDu between 2005 and 2007. This allowed for consistency
in terms of data elicitation. It also meant that, due to the nature of the Irish
Deaf Community, Ms Byrne was known to all of the participants. In the
data, this shows up in terms of interaction on-screen between informants
and data collector, allowing for some interesting and natural interaction.
In addition to SOI data, some images in this book come from SIGNALL II
project data. SIGNALL II was a Leonardo da Vinci (European Commission
Lifelong Learning) Project which created a large body of digital data in ve
signed languages including ISL between 2008 and 2010.2
Since signed languages are articulated in three-dimensional space, using
not only the hands and arms but also the head, shoulders, torso, eyes, eye-
brows, nose, mouth and chin to express meaning, analysts are faced with
highly complex, multi-linear and potentially dependent tiers that need to be
coded and time-aligned. The data are viewable across a multiplicity of tiers
in the ELAN system.3 These tiers are searchable, allowing for the sophisti-
cated collection of data, which better supports analysis of discourse in signed
languages and the analysis of the frequency of occurrence of specic features
both within single texts and across larger bodies of data. An example of a
screen shot from the SOI corpus in ELAN can be seen in Figure 1.1. Figure
1.2 shows the results of a search for the lexical sign DEAF in the SOI corpus.
As with spoken languages, discussion about what is linguistic and what
is extra-linguistic in the grammars of various signed languages continues
(Engberg-Pedersen 1993; Liddell 2003; Schembri 2003). Further, the inu-
ence of gesture on signed languages has begun to be explored (Armstrong
et al. 1995; Armstrong and Wilcox 2007; Vermeerbergen and Demey 2007;
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 3 10/04/2012 11:00

4 Irish Sign Language
Wilcox 2004b). While these remain theoretical notions at a certain level,
decisions regarding their role and function as linguistic or extra-linguistic
constituents play an important role when determining what will be included
or excluded in an annotated corpus. Such decisions also determine how items
are notated, particularly in the absence of a written form for the language
being described. In turn, these decisions will determine how user-friendly and
how useful the nal corpus will be.
1.3 A cognitive perspective on Irish Sign Language
This book is aimed at a broad audience: teachers and learners of ISL, lin-
guists, interpreters, parents, Deaf and hearing signers of ISL, and readers
interested in signed languages in general. With this in mind, we attempt to
oer a comprehensive presentation of discussion on ISL, though we empha-
sise that for some parts of the analysis of this language we are still at an early
stage. This is particularly true for the analysis of syntactic and discourse
structures. Throughout this book our discussion is underpinned by a theo-
Figure 1.1 Screen shot of SOI example in ELAN (Fiona (36) Frog Story
(Waterford))
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 4 10/04/2012 11:00

Introduction 5
retical perspective on language known as cognitive linguistics. This approach
has several principles which we believe allow for an elegant description of
many of the features found in signed languages. These principles allow for
discussion of topics such as iconicity, gesture, metaphor, metonymy, the
construction of lexical meaning, the use of mental models of space for seman-
tic relations, and the partitioning of signing space and the signer’s body to
represent multiple referents simultaneously. We raise specic aspects of this
approach throughout the book and bring these to a summary discussion in
Chapter 9. For now, we can identify some key notions that will underpin our
analysis by condensing them into four claims: that linguistic knowledge is
encyclopaedic and non-autonomous; that linguistic meaning is perspectival;
Figure 1.2 Results of search for the lexical sign DEAF across forty-seven narratives
in the SOI corpus
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 5 10/04/2012 11:00

6 Irish Sign Language
that linguistic meaning is dynamic and exible; and that linguistic knowledge
is based on usage and experience.
1.3.1 Linguistic knowledge is encyclopaedic and non-autonomous
This is the view that meaning constructed through a language reects our
overall experience as human beings. It involves knowledge of the world, and
this is integrated with other cognitive capacities. Embodiment is a key concept
here (Johnson 1987). The principle of embodiment suggests that our organic
nature as humans with bodies inuences our experience of the world. For
example, we talk of the positions of things in the world with respect to how
they relate to us: in front of, behind, facing towards, facing away from, etc.
That is, our bodies and our gaze have natural orientations and we project
this onto other entities like houses and natural features in the landscape.
Embodiment underpins language because of a second important cognitivist
assumption: that semantic structure incorporates and transmits conceptual
structure. We show examples of this in ISL when we discuss the classier
system in Chapter 5 and when we discuss how lexical meaning is created
from a range of sources, linguistic and non-linguistic, in Chapters 6 and 9.
Further, human beings are cultural and social entities, and language reveals
these identities by embodying the historical and cultural experiences of groups
of speakers and of individuals. This feature of language allows us to identify,
for example, the inuence of French Sign Language on Irish Sign Language,
mapping the historical cultural link between Irish and French Catholic Deaf
Schools in the 1840s, or to trace certain lexical items back to Ireland’s status
as a colony of the British Empire via the use of British Sign Language in the
early nineteenth century, perhaps from the rst schools for the deaf circa 1816.
1.3.2 Linguistic meaning is perspectival
In this view meaning is not an objective reection of the outside world;
instead, meaning is a way of shaping the world (Geeraerts 2006). Linguistic
meaning embodies a perspective on the world. For example, we can present
information about an event in a number of ways. We can say that ‘the tree
is in front of the house’ or that ‘the house is behind the tree’. The crux of the
matter lies both in the speaker’s or signer’s position vis-à-vis the house and
the tree and the chosen perspective. As we shall see, ISL has a number of
ways to encode for perspective, including the use of the non-dominant hand
in simultaneous constructions. Another, which is common to other signed
languages, is the movement of the signer’s body to another position in signing
space to present another referent’s view ‘through their eyes’, so to speak. This
strategy has been given a number of labels, including shifted reference and
surrogacy constructed action; we discuss its use in discourse in Chapter 8.
Perspective is one aspect of the subjectivity of language by which the signers’
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 6 10/04/2012 11:00

Introduction 7
beliefs and attitudes nd expression in the form and meaning of their lan-
guage, as discussed by Brisard (2006) and De Smet and Verstraete (2006).
1.3.3 Linguistic meaning is dynamic and exible
Meaning has to do with shaping our world. Given this, language is dynamic
and meanings change over time. Geeraerts (2006: 4) writes that ‘New experi-
ences and changes in our environment require that we adapt our semantic
categories to transformations of the circumstances, and that we leave room
for nuances and slightly deviant cases.’ As we shall see in Chapters 5 and 6,
ISL is a language that has changed over time and there are many inuences
that have left their mark on the lexicon of contemporary ISL. ISL is also
a language that is dynamic, changing to incorporate the types of talk and
the topics of talk that modern ISL users wish to discuss, for example new
technologies. We can also trace parts of the history of ISL in the contempo-
rary lexicon, and if we have access to documentation of older ISL, we can
extrapolate the pathways to language change and to grammaticalisation.
Thus language is dynamic and exible, with meanings shaped over time and
subject to change.
1.3.4 Linguistic knowledge is based on usage and experience
Cognitive linguists adopt a usage-based view of language. This means that
linguistic analysis begins as far as is possible with the utterance, that is lan-
guage use that is situated in a context of communication, rather than with
abstracted sentences. In this view knowledge of a language derives from expe-
rience of its use. Consequently, the investigation of language must be rooted
in real instances of linguistic interaction. Such a view of language requires
analysts to integrate their investigation with the study of historical change
and the processes by which language is acquired since both impact on current
linguistic behaviour.
1.3.5 How does this link to our discussion of ISL?
Throughout this volume, we draw heavily on the Signs of Ireland corpus to
provide examples of how language is used in practice, rather than depending
on sample sentences created to illustrate grammatical points. Our analysis is
framed by the four principles outlined in section 1.3 and these are drawn on
at various points in our discussion. A key point to make is that our aim is not
prescriptive. That is, we are not saying how ISL should be, nor are we outlin-
ing a grammar of ‘proper’ language usage. We describe the language as we
nd it used, and we try to provide a solid analysis of some of the phenomena
that present. We do not assume that contemporary ISL arises in a vacuum.
Instead, the historical and social inuences on ISL are considered and
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 7 10/04/2012 11:00

8 Irish Sign Language
outlined in the rst part of this book in order to ground our understanding of
how contemporary ISL has been shaped. We also avoid looking at structures
in isolation, as instances of disembodied, non-contextualised language use.
Instead, we have drawn all data that form the basis for our discussion of ISL
from the Signs of Ireland corpus, or report on examples of ISL that draws
on authentic, extended language use in context, for example the body of data
referred to by Leeson (2001) . We also draw on previous descriptions of ISL,
particularly the work of Barbara LeMaster (1990, 1999–2000, 2002) and her
work with O’Dwyer (1991); Patrick McDonnell (1996, 2004); and Dónall Ó
Baoill and Patrick A. Matthews (2000).
1.4 The structure of this book
Chapter 2 sets the scene by considering the properties of human language
and situating signed languages, and particularly Irish Sign Language, in
that context. Chapter 3 situates Irish Sign Language in its social and histori-
cal context. We look at the evolution of the modern Irish Deaf community
and its language, considering the impact that educational policy has had
on language form and function since the early nineteenth century. We also
consider the inuence of ISL on other signed languages including Australian
and South African Sign Languages. We discuss the pathways to language
acquisition for Irish deaf children and consider how state policy can improve
or impede access to ISL, education through ISL and general participation in
society by Deaf ISL users.
In Chapter 4 we consider the basic building blocks of ISL. We look at
the phonetic and phonological basis for word formation. In Chapter 5 we
explore aspects of the morphology of this language. We consider inectional
and derivational aspects of morphology, looking at verb classes, aspectual
modication, the use of signing space and the allocation of referents to loci
within the signing space. We also examine plural marking, number and com-
pound formation processes. Chapter 6 builds on this, introducing a discus-
sion of the lexicon in ISL. We consider the role of what has been referred
to as the ‘established’ and the ‘productive’ lexicons, suggesting that this
two-way distinction is rather limiting when one considers the dynamic nature
of lexical development in the language. We highlight the inuences of other
languages, including English, French, French Sign Language and British
Sign Language, on contemporary ISL, and discuss the role that gesture plays
as a substrate for lexical development. We also explore the metaphoric and
metonymic underpinnings of much of the lexicon.
Chapter 7 considers some aspects of the syntax of ISL, beginning with a
consideration of grammatical categories and how they present in this lan-
guage. We then progress to consider sentence types, including discussion of
statements, questions, imperatives, negation, the marking of time, constitu-
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 8 10/04/2012 11:00

Introduction 9
ent order and the role that simultaneity plays. Chapter 8 brings our discus-
sion to the level of discourse. We consider both the macro, interactional
level and the more micro, discourse-internal level issues here, including how
participants manage conversational interaction: the signalling of turn-taking,
topic maintenance and politeness. We are also concerned with discourse
cohesion in shorter and across longer stretches of discourse. In Chapter 9
we draw our discussion to a conclusion, teasing out some of the cognitive
linguistics principles that permeate our discussion throughout this book. We
discuss the principles of embodiment, the relationship between lexical items
and real-world knowledge, the role of metaphor and metonymy, an analysis
of mental spaces, and conceptual blending processes.
1.5 Some notes on transcription conventions used in this volume
Throughout this volume we present sample ISL data in several forms. We
present some still images captured from the video data that make up the
Signs of Ireland corpus, normally accompanied by a gloss of the data, that is
a literal representation of the lexical signs, represented with English words,
and we use a set of conventions for describing locations in signing space,
and handshapes that make up ‘classier’ or ‘productive’ forms, as we shall
discuss below. We also indicate where examples from our data are available
for viewing on the DVD that accompanies this volume. These are included
because we believe that the three-dimensional, dynamic nature of a signed
language cannot be adequately captured by two-dimensional still images and
glosses alone. Where you see , you will nd the example on the DVD for
viewing.
We need to say something further here about glossing data. When anno-
tating a corpus, there is a myth that the annotators are neutral with respect
to the data they work with and that they simply write down what they see.
While this is untrue for anyone working on a corpus linguistics project, it is
doubly untrue for those working on a signed language. As ISL does not have
a written form, there is no standard code for recording it. While some estab-
lished transcription keys exist (HamNoSys, Sign Writing, Stokoe Notation),
none of these are compatible with ELAN and none are fully developed with
respect to ISL. The other problem with these transcription systems is that
they are not shared ‘languages’, that is in the international sign linguistic
communities these transcription codes are not commonplace, and to use one
in place of a gloss means limiting the sharing of data to a small group of lin-
guists. However, as Pizzutto and Pietrandrea (2001) point out, glossing data
with English ‘tags’ is problematic too. There are dangers inherent in assum-
ing that a gloss can stand in for an original piece of signed language data;
this is another reason why we supply as many stills from the original Signs of
Ireland data source as we can. Pizzutto and Pietrandrea note that:
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 9 10/04/2012 11:00

10 Irish Sign Language
It is often implicitly or explicitly assumed that the use of glosses in
research on signed [languages] is more or less comparable to the use of
glosses in research on spoken languages [. . .] this assumption does not
take into account, in our view, that there is a crucial dierence in the
way glosses are used in spoken as compared to signed language descrip-
tion. In descriptions of spoken (or also written) languages, glosses
typically fulll an ancillary role and necessarily require an independent
written representation of the sound sequence being glossed. In contrast,
in description of signed languages, glosses are the primary and only
means of representing in writing the sequence of articulatory move-
ments being glossed. (37)
It is also true that glosses impose potentially unwarranted and highly vari-
able lexical and grammatical information upon the data, depending upon the
spoken or written language used for glossing (ibid.: 42). To try and mitigate
these problems we have adopted the principle of using what Trevor Johnston
(2001) refers to as an ID gloss, that is using a consistent gloss for all vari-
ants of a single form. Johnston and de Beuzeville (n.d.) describe an ID-gloss
as:
the (English) word that is consistently used to label a sign within the
[Auslan] corpus, regardless of the meaning of that sign in a particular
context or whether it has been systematically modied in some way.
For example, if a person signs HOUSE (a sign iconically related to
the shape of a roof and walls) but actually means home, or performs a
particularly large and exaggerated form of the sign HOUSE, implying
mansion, (without that modied form itself being a recognized and dis-
tinctive lexeme of the language), the ID-gloss HOUSE is used in both
instances to identify the sign in the gloss annotation. (7)
This process ensures that searches across the corpus facilitates identication
of all listed variants of the same form. In ISL there are many concepts that are
represented by a range of variants, including signs for WHAT and DEAF, as
illustrated in Example 1.1. In the ISL corpus, these are also assigned a base-
line gloss, or, in Johnston’s terms, an ID-gloss.
Finally, we should comment on how we reference examples from the corpus.
We are eager to ensure that the participants who gave of their time and con-
tributed to the creation of the Signs of Ireland corpus are acknowledged for
their contribution. We are indebted to them. Without them, this work would
not be possible. To acknowledge their contribution in some small way, we
reference each example to its originator. We hope that this makes the often
invisible set of language subjects a living part of the joint process of using and
describing ISL.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 10 10/04/2012 11:00

Introduction 11
Example 1.1
(a) WHAT (b) WHAT (or WHAT-FOR)
Derek (28) Personal Stories (Cork) Fiona (36) Personal Stories (Waterford)
(c) DEAF (d) DEAF
Patrick (24) Personal Stories (Wexford) Derek (28) Personal Stories (Cork)
(e) DEAF (Part 1) (e) DEAF (Part 2)
Noeleen (03) Personal Stories (Dublin) Noeleen (03) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 11 10/04/2012 11:00

12 Irish Sign Language
Notes
1. For a description of the political agreement on Northern Ireland known
as the Good Friday Agreement, see the Irish Department of Foreign
Aairs website, <http://www.dfa.ie/home/index.aspx?id=335> (accessed
25 November 2011).
2. For further details, see <http://www.deafstudies.eu> (accessed 25
November 2011).
3. For further details, see <http://www.lat-mpi.eu/tools/elan/download>
(accessed 25 November 2011).
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 12 10/04/2012 11:00

2 What Is a Signed Language?
2.1 Introduction
In this chapter we will introduce the general features of language – spoken or
signed. This chapter introduces the notion that language can exist in one of
two modalities: oral or gestural. We introduce the design features of language
and consider them with respect to signed languages. We discuss the issues
which signed linguistics have identied as distinguishing signed languages
from spoken languages most radically. Specic topics for consideration
include the use of the signer’s own body, the ways in which signing space are
used, simultaneity and iconicity.
2.2 The design features of language: do they hold for signed languages?
Researchers have identied a list of criteria for dening ‘language’ as
opposed to another system of communication like, for example, Morse code.
The criteria should be viewed as a collection of features that have been seen as
the necessary and sucient conditions for a system to be considered a natural
language, and we note that the work on signed language research since the
mid twentieth century has benetted the eld of linguistics greatly in allowing
us to escape from traditional denitions of language and to reconsider some
of the features that were formerly considered essential to the denition. A
case in point is the use of the vocal-auditory tract. Vocalisation is not in and
of itself language. While language typically begins as speech, and speech is
dependent on the vocal-auditory channel (see Armstrong 1999), language can
also be expressed in the visual-gestural mode. Irish Sign Language, like other
signed languages, is expressed using the hands, torso, face, head, shoulders
and eyes of the signer. Signs are expressed in the three-dimensional space
known as ‘signing space’, as illustrated in Figure 2.1.
Before we turn to look at the design features in detail, there are a number
of preliminary points that we need to consider about signed languages.
First, signed languages are often talked about as being ‘one-handed’ or
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 13 10/04/2012 11:00

14 Irish Sign Language
‘two-handed’. This is a misnomer in many ways, as all signed language users
make use of two hands in creating signs. The concept of one- or two-handed-
ness relates to the fact that many signed languages make use of a one-handed
signed alphabet: that is, the letters of the alphabet are represented on the
signer’s dominant hand (typically the dominant hand is the hand that one
writes with). Irish Sign Language falls into this category. In contrast, British
Sign Language (also used in Northern Ireland) makes use of a two-handed
alphabet.
Fingerspelling is used to represent the orthographic conventions of written
forms of spoken languages and is typically used to spell out proper nouns
(names, places), for lexical items in English that have no established lexical
equivalent in ISL (for example, g.l.o.b.e.). Fingerspelling may also be used
for a lexical item that is ‘new’ to the language. For example, in the early
1990s, there was no established sign for FAX-MACHINE, and signers n-
gerspelled f.a.x.
As we shall see in Chapters 5 and 6, items that begin life as ngerspelled
items can become lexicalised, as is the case with items like #BANK and
#LIMERICK where the entire word is no longer ngerspelled, and cogni-
tively, signers see these ‘ngerspelled items’ as words in ISL. We also nd
that in some instances, signers may ngerspell items for which a lexicalised
equivalent does exist (for example, one signer in our corpus ngerspells
s.n.o.w. when there is a lexical item available meaning SNOW).
We will look at the issue of simultaneity later in this chapter, and will
return to consider the possibilities that the expression of language in a visual-
gestural modality facilitates throughout this book.
Moving away from ngerspelling, it is also worth noting at the outset that
in ISL, some signs are one-handed and others are two-handed. For example,
the sign LOVE is typically two-handed, while the sign HOT is one-handed,
as in Example 2.1.
Figure 2.1 Signing space
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 14 10/04/2012 11:00

What Is a Signed Language? 15
Example 2.1
However, signs that are one-handed can undergo a process called ‘doubling’.
That is, the non-dominant hand can step in and ‘echo’ the sign articulated on
the dominant hand, even though there is no requirement for this to occur in
order for any articulatory constraints to be met. We do nd that there may
be pragmatic or sociolinguistic factors driving such instances. These include
doubling of the hands in a single articulator sign for emphasis, or in formal
settings. We talk more about this in Chapter 8.
Conversely, it is also possible for signs that are usually articulated as two-
handed signs to be presented as one-handed. There are a range of conditions
that allow for this to happen, including discourse management issues (for
example, the non-dominant hand may be ‘holding’ a point while the domi-
nant hand continues to sign), sociolinguistic reasons (informal contexts may
see an increase in one-handed production of what are normally two-handed
signs) and purely practical reasons (for example, a signer’s non-dominant
hand may be busy doing something else, like holding a drink or a baby, or
the steering wheel of the car). An example of a normally two-handed sign
articulated as a one-handed sign can be seen in Example 2.2. Here, the signer
articulates the sign ABLE with one hand while, on his non-dominant hand,
he holds a fragment of the two-handed sign BUSY, from earlier in the sen-
tence. This fragment is a ‘buoy’ and we look at the function of a range of
buoys in Chapter 8 when we discuss discourse level operations in ISL.
What we can say here is that it is hard to draw hard and fast lines between
one- and two-handed signs: what is considered to be a one- or two-handed
sign in citation form is not always seen articulated in the same way in
discourse.
Moving on to consider the issues which are considered to be universal
across languages, we can say that arbitrariness of the sign is a feature that
LOVE HOT (on signer’s right hand)
Fergus D. (06) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 15 10/04/2012 11:00

16 Irish Sign Language
Example 2.2
receives a lot of attention in the literature. Arbitrariness suggests that there
is no necessary link between the word and the object it denotes (for example, a
car can also be called automobile, voiture, wagon, etc.). For spoken languages,
exceptions to this rule are the English onomatopoeic words like cuckoo,
splash and slurp. Onomatopoeia varies from language to language and is not
usually taken to be very widespread. However, another view put forward
by cognitive linguists such as John Taylor and George Lako suggests that
language is grounded in meaning and is linked to our experience of being
human (Lako 1987; Taylor 1995). This is something that we discuss for ISL
in greater detail in later chapters. For example, they see the use of metaphor
as a core means of expressing ourselves rather than a special feature, used in
rare circumstances. They also propose that iconicity occurs even at the level
of syntax (Haiman 1998; Taylor 1985). For signed languages, as we shall see,
the relationship between form and meaning may be arbitrary, for example as
in one of the ISL signs for SCHOOL, as in Example 2.3.
Example 2.3
AGREE (articulated with one hand)
Fergus D. (06) Personal Stories (Dublin)
SCHOOL
Sean (13) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 16 10/04/2012 11:00

What Is a Signed Language? 17
However, another sign for SCHOOL (not found in the SOI corpus) is iconic.
The non-dominant hand takes the ISL-L-handshape while the dominant
hand takes an ISL-S-handshape. The non-dominant hand represents a page
(for example, from a book), while the dominant hand travels from the centre
of the non-dominant hand to the forehead. The forehead is associated with
concepts of learning and knowledge. The movement path that the dominant
hand travels is from the ‘paper’, the non-dominant hand, to the forehead, the
seat of knowledge. That is, the sign represents knowledge moving from an
external source to the brain. As we shall see in later chapters, this degree of
iconicity, often embedded in conceptual metaphors or associated with meto-
nymic (that is, part-whole relationships such as making reference to a steering
wheel as the sign for CAR, a roof as the sign for HOUSE) is pervasive across
ISL. Associated with the notion that ‘real’ words do not have a clearly iden-
tiable relationship with the thing they represent (for example, the word ‘cat’
doesn’t represent the way a cat looks or sounds), arbitrariness of the symbol
became a key issue in considering whether signed languages would qualify as
meeting the criteria for ‘real’ languages. As we shall see, this led to two dier-
ent traditions emerging with respect to how signed languages were described.
2.3 What is unique about signed languages?
In the early days of sign linguistics, the role of iconicity was played down
(Vermeerbergen and Leeson 2011; Woll 2003). Vermeerbergen and Leeson
(2011) note that in the late twentieth century, two dierent traditions inuenced
how signed languages were described. Following Karlsson (1984), we can label
these as the ‘oral language compatibility view’ and the ‘sign[ed] language dif-
ferential view’ (see also Woll 2003 for a discussion of modern and post-modern
approaches to sign linguistics). Vermeerbergen and Leeson note that:
The oral language compatibility view presupposes that most of what
comprises signed language structure is in line with what is typically
described for spoken languages (i.e. oral languages), which means that
while signed languages are expressed in a dierent modality, they have
a great deal of structural commonality with spoken languages. The dif-
ferential view suggests that signed languages are so unique in structure
that their description should not be modeled on spoken language analo-
gies. Accordingly, there are two research traditions in Europe, with a
minority taking the dierential view. The majority have concentrated
on the similarities between spoken and signed languages, emphasising
their underlying common identity. Characteristics that make signed
languages unique were often ignored, minimised, or interpreted as
being comparable to certain spoken language mechanisms. (270)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 17 10/04/2012 11:00

18 Irish Sign Language
They go on to note that there are many reasons why this approach dominated,
the most important of these relating to the contemporaneous questions about
the status of signed languages. Researchers stressed points of commonality
with spoken languages in a bid to demonstrate that signed languages were
natural languages. Since the turn of the twenty-rst century, this clear-cut
distinction between the two approaches has become blurred, with greater
recognition of the unique characteristics that arise from, for example modal-
ity dierences. We should note that the French researcher, Christian Cuxac,
has been a proponent of the dierential model and his work has delved into
the complexity of the role of iconicity in signed languages in great depth. In
the early twenty-rst century, cognitive linguistics brought researchers who
formerly worked in a general oral language compatibility framework (for
example, Liddell 2003) towards a more dierentially driven viewpoint.
Iconicity, then, has been a key issue in considering the status of signed
language, in identifying the extent of the lexicon in signed languages, and in
describing the grammar of signed languages; and as we shall see in Chapter
5, when we come to discuss the morphology of ISL and the structure of the
lexicon, there seems to be a lot of ‘iconic’ or ‘isomorphic’ vocabulary used
in signed languages. Given their pervasiveness in the language, let us take a
moment to dene these terms.
For signed languages, we can note that early work looked at the role
of ‘visual motivation’ in the creation of lexical items in signed languages.
Mandel (1977) categorised signs that might be considered as ‘visually moti-
vated’ into two groups: (1) signs that show an image of the referent or action,
which are ‘presentation signs’ (that is, signs where we present the referent or
the action of the referent in some way); and (2) signs that depict the referent
in some way (for example, by outlining the shape of the referent with our
hands). Sutton-Spence and Woll (1999) build on this description, and note
that all BSL signers use visually motivated signs, although most of the time
signers are not aware of the fact that they are including some information in
the form of the sign that relates to the referent it represents. This also holds
true for ISL, as we shall see, despite the fact that ISL makes much greater use
of the manual alphabet in the production of initialised signs than does BSL.
Sutton-Spence and Woll (ibid.) describe the following categories of visu-
ally motivated signs:
1. presentable objects
2. presentable actions
3. virtual depiction
4. substitutive depiction.
Presentable objects include referents that are physically present in the
signing context – for example, the signer (ME), the interlocutor (YOU), as
well as body parts (EAR, NOSE, ELBOW, etc.) – all of which are indicated
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 18 10/04/2012 11:00

What Is a Signed Language? 19
using the INDEX-handshape in ISL. A bent ISL-L-handshape can be used
for items like HEAD, STOMACH, ALL-OF-US. Like BSL, abstract con-
cepts like TIME can be referred to by association in ISL, using the INDEX-
handshape to indicate to the wrist, linking to the wearing of a watch, of
course.
Presentable actions are referred to by using the body to perform the
action that is referred to, and these are often referred to as ‘imitative
actions’ (Sutton-Spence and Woll 1999: 175). Examples from ISL include
SWIM, BLOW-NOSE, PUT-HAND-IN-AIR and SCRATCH-HEAD.
Other examples include reference to how an item is handled, such as WRITE,
FISHING, BRUSH-HAIR, PUT-ON-COAT, RIDE-A-MOTORBIKE and
BINOCULARS.
Virtual depiction is expressed when the signer uses his or her hand(s) to
trace the outline or extent of a referent, or a part thereof (also known as
metonymy). Using an INDEX-handshape, signers may trace, for example,
the outline of a table in signing space, or a at-B-handshape to sign TABLE.
Or they may use a C-handshape to trace the extent of an elephant’s trunk
or to trace the path that a pipe follows on a building site. The relationship
between the form of the sign and the referent it refers to is also known as ‘ico-
nicity’ or ‘isomorphism’. We discuss the concept of iconicity in greater detail
later in this volume.
Another key feature of human language is ‘duality of articulation’ or ‘dual
articulation’. This refers to the organisation of language at two levels: mean-
ingless units and meaningful units. For example, as we shall see in Chapter
3, phonemes are typically meaningless in isolation, but when combined as
morphemes they are meaningful. This applies to spoken and signed lan-
guages. For example, in English, the sound /b/ is not meaningful in isolation.
However, when combined as part of the morpheme [but] it has meaning.
Similarly, meaningful signs in ISL must comprise a handshape, a location, a
movement and an orientation. Without these combining, we have phonologi-
cal components of signs, but not meaningful morphemes. Thus, a handshape
or a location by itself is simply phonetic in nature. Further, we shall explore
the phonological basis of mouthed elements in ISL in Chapter 4.
Semanticity is another of the features considered key to human languages.
Semanticity denotes the use of symbols that refer to objects and actions. For
example, we use the English word ‘tree’ to refer to any large woody peren-
nial plant with a distinct trunk and usually having leaves and branches. We
also use the word ‘tree’ to describe concepts such as family tree or shoetree,
and we talk about someone being ‘at the top of the tree’ in terms of having
reached the pinnacle of their profession. Here we see the use of the generic
term ‘tree’ (a prototype) and also the use of noun-phrases, compounds and
idiomatic expressions. Signed languages also do the same thing. For example,
in ISL we have the literal sign BOIL, which is expressed in neutral space,
while the idiomatic expression BOIL+c (I’m boiling (angry)), consists of the
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 19 10/04/2012 11:00

20 Irish Sign Language
same manual sign BOIL, with one modication: the place of articulation
moves from neutral space to the signer’s body (stomach area).
Signed languages are highly complex insofar as there is multi-layering of
simultaneously expressed information that occurs both manually and non-
manually. Signers make use of multiple articulators (the hands, the mouth,
the signer’s body) in expressing meaning. Information is typically layered,
with meaning created across the articulators (manual and non-manual), and
with points in signing space invested with meaning for referents that can then
be added to, to further specify or expand a theme (for example, a location
in signing space may be co-referential for Dublin, my parents, their home,
etc.). This layering of meaning is comprehensible because signers do not
make the mistake that learners of a signed language frequently do: they are
not simply looking for meaning in the hands of their interlocutor. Instead,
they have a gestalt view on information produced. In Example 2.4, we see a
relatively simple example from the SOI corpus of simultaneity at work, where
the signer is talking about a holiday in Norway. Here, the signer’s left hand
represents a foot in the snow, while the right hand is captured mid comment,
saying that there is ‘real (snow) (on the ground where the foot is situated)’.
Example 2.4
Another issue for consideration is the creative potential for language.
Creativity in a linguistic sense refers to our capacity to produce and under-
stand an indenite number of sentences, our ability to create from nite
means (for example, a limited number of sounds/handshapes that are pos-
sible in a language, a nite pattern of rules, etc.) and an innite number of
utterances. Taking a wider view, Valli and Lucas (1995) suggest that language
is productive. That is, the number of sentences that can be made in a language
is innite and new messages can be produced at any time about any topic.
Irish Sign Language is a language that is evolving, and as such, as new themes
REAL SNOW
Mary (33) Personal Stories (Galway)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 20 10/04/2012 11:00

What Is a Signed Language? 21
become relevant to daily life, signs are developed to express new concepts.
Examples include signs relating to information and communication technol-
ogy (ICT), such as INTERNET, BROADBAND, FACEBOOK, GOOGLE,
etc. which simply did not exist in ISL twenty years ago (Matthews 1996b).
We will explore the ways in which ISL is a creative language in further
detail when we consider issues such as the creation of new signs and the
functionality of the productive lexicon in Chapters 5 and 6, while we will talk
further about metaphors in ISL and extended use of language in Chapters 6
and 9. For now, we can say that, like speakers of a language, signers have the
capacity to be creative with language and can produce an innite number of
utterances within the connes of the linguistic system. An example is Renga
poetry forms in ISL, created by groups of signers who worked together to
co-produce short poems.1
Valli and Lucas (ibid.) note that languages have mechanisms for introduc-
ing new symbols. That is, the lexicon is productive. We noted earlier that ISL
has introduced new vocabulary to deal with the developments in ICT. What
is also true is that ISL has developed, in rule-governed ways, genre-specic
terminology to deal with the broadening range of domains in which ISL users
participate. That is, human language can be used for an unrestricted number
of domains, and ISL is no exception. An example of this is in the area of
linguistics, where, since the 1990s, ISL has developed vocabulary for com-
monly used terms in linguistics like semantics (MEAN^DEEP), pragmatics
(DEPEND^SITUATION), etc. (Leeson and Foley-Cave 2007). Languages
change over time. For example, new words are added to a language and
others become obsolete. In Chapter 5, we will discuss in more detail issues
regarding word formation.
As we shall see, languages can be broken down into component parts, a
feature known as ‘duality of patterning’ or ‘duality of articulation’. Equally,
more than one meaning can be conveyed by a symbol or a group of symbols.
That is, sentences in language can express irony, sarcasm, demands, a
request or a statement. At the same time, we can look at the grammatical
elements that make up the sentence (nouns, verbs, adverbs, adjectives, etc.).
Languages also refer to the past, future and non-immediate situations: they
are not restricted to the present and the immediate (we will say more on this
when we talk about ‘displacement’).
Yet another feature of human language is structural dependence: language
is arranged in structured chunks, not simple linear sequences. This impacts on
word order issues, on the one hand, and how we interpret broader sequences
of meaning, on the other (for example, the scope of negation marking or the
identication of a topic).
Natural languages show the relationship between symbols. For example, in
English, a subject is followed by a verb (for example, I told you), and conse-
quently speakers of English know that the act of telling took place in the past
(past tense form of the verb ‘to tell’) where the person who did the telling was
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 21 10/04/2012 11:00

22 Irish Sign Language
the speaker (‘I’) and the receiver of the information was the receiver (‘you’).
Because signed language users express information on the body, in signing
space and via specic expressions on the face (non-manual features) as well
as on the hands (manual components), the issue of word order is complex.
As we shall see in Chapters 7 and 8, signed languages have the potential to
employ simultaneous constructions that make use of the face, torso and both
hands of the signer. Research shows there are clear preferences for word
order in ISL and that these preferences are linked to verb categorisation.
Leeson (2001) reports that plain verbs take overt subjects and objects
(for example, I LOVE YOU (‘I love you’)), while agreement verbs tend to
occur in sentences with a topic-comment structure (for example, MAN+f
f+EMAIL+c (‘The man emailed me’)).
Of course, much of what creates meaningful utterances in ISL is non-
manual, and the scope of non-manual behaviours is key in our identication
of structural dependence. Let us take just two examples here: (1) the scope of
negation; and (2) the scope of topic marking.
Irish Sign Language uses a variety of non-manual features (NMFs) to indi-
cate certain types of sentence structures, including negation and in marking
for a range of interrogatives. Negation (‘n’) is marked by an obligatory
side-to-side headshake, and a non-obligatory down-turning of the mouth
(McDonnell 1996). The ‘n’ marker co-occurs with appropriate manual
signals, as in the following examples.
Example 2.5
__________n
BOY COME HOME
‘The boy did not come home’
(McDonnell 1996: 44)
Example 2.6
‘not interested’
____________n
r/s INTERESTED
‘(She) was not interested (in him)’
(Leeson 2001: 39)
While it is typical for ‘n’ to co-occur with manually articulated lexical signs,
in certain contexts, it is possible for NMFs to co-occur with classier predi-
cates that represent previously established referents in the discourse. Example
2.7 illustrates this point, where ‘n’ occurs in a segment of discourse where the
signer has shifted reference to ll the locus established for the little girl in the
story of ‘The Bear’. In this segment, she is holding a rabbit that she has been
given by her mother to replace a doll that fell into the bear’s cavern at the
zoo. She is not happy with this replacement for her doll, and in the example
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 22 10/04/2012 11:00

What Is a Signed Language? 23
below, we see that she looks at the rabbit while crying (expressed via facial
expression). The classier handshape that represents the form of the rabbit
is held on the dominant hand while the signer gazes towards the held clas-
sier handshape at the locus established for the rabbit. This is immediately
followed by a headshake, before the signer introduces the locative agreement
verb c+THROW+f. This nal section of discourse co-occurs with the NMF
‘th’, indicating that the verbal activity was carried out in a clumsy, rather
disdainful way.
Example 2.7
________________‘crying’ ‘looks-at-rabbit’; n ______________
R/s 2/h CL-B ‘holds rabbit’ ____________________ c+THROW+f CL.G.
_________th
‘falls-to-floor’
‘(The girl) had the rabbit in her hands, looked at him, decided she didn’t want him
and threw him across the room where he fell to the floor’ (Leeson 2001: 39)
In the Signs of Ireland corpus data, we nd that negation occurs both manu-
ally and non-manually. In Example 2.8 the signer tells how she would never
wish to leave her job at St Joseph’s School for Deaf Boys. She says that this
is because of the anity she has for the boys, enhanced due to the fact that
she too is a Deaf person. She signs (manually): REAL(LY) LIKE MY JOB
/ NEVER LIKE LEAVE / NO WAY. Non-manually, we see her head tilt to
the side-left when she signs NEVER, followed by a negative headshake co-
occurring with LIKE LEAVE and continue over the scope of the manually
articulated signs, NO WAY. Here, the negative headshake serves to empha-
sise the manual components.
Example 2.8
We can also take this opportunity to note that while negative manual signs
are obligatory in some signed languages, it is the negative non-manual
element that seems to be obligatory in ISL. That is, we can have sentences in
ISL that, on the basis of the manual signs, do not have a negative reading;
Noeleen (03) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 23 10/04/2012 11:00

24 Irish Sign Language
however, the co-occurrence of a negative headshake forces a negative
interpretation.
The marking of topics is another domain where non-manual features
play a crucial role. (Baker-Shenk and Cokely 1980) describe ASL as a topic-
comment language, noting that, like speakers of Mandarin Chinese and
Tagalog, ASL signers have a tendency to introduce a topic to indicate rst
the thing they want to talk about and then add a comment to make some
statement(s), question(s), etc. about the topic element. Given this tendency,
ASL is described as having a ‘topic-comment structure’. They note that topic-
comment structure can be applied at discourse and at sentential level, and
identify several components that comprise topic marking:
(a) during the signing of the ‘topic’, the brows are raised, the head is
tilted, and the signer maintains fairly constant eye gaze on the addressee
(except where directional gaze is needed for establishing or referring to
referents in space); (b) the last sign in the topic is held slightly longer
than usual, resulting in a pause; (c) then, when the comment is signed,
the head position, brows and gaze direction are changed. (157)
For ISL, Ó Baoill and Matthews (2000) report that the main non-manual
features associated with the articulation of topic-comment utterances in ISL
are the head, which is tilted back slightly, raised eyebrows accompanying the
articulation of the topic, followed by a head-nod while maintaining the raised
eyebrow position. They propose that the head-nod functions to ensure that
the addressee has correctly identied the topic. Further, they report that the
eyebrows return to neutral position during the articulation of the comment.
It is interesting to note that Ó Baoill and Matthews present a semi-unied
analysis: they consider topics as syntactic elements, but also as pragmatic fea-
tures that mark for focus. They also explicitly note that there is a dierence
between syntactic topicality and focus marking. They argue that in some of
the examples they consider, the nominals in ‘topic’ position could be better
described as focusing or highlighting particular elements, as the information
that is under focus in these utterances is not always a new topic.
Ó Baoill and Matthews suggest that we can think of ISL topics as being
similar in structure to cleft sentences found in spoken languages like English
and Irish. This involves moving a subject or object to the beginning of a
sentence where it is followed by a relative clause, such as ‘It is Karen who
is having a baby.’ In standard English, this process is restricted, with only
nominals functioning as clefts. However, in Irish any constituent can report-
edly be clefted (ibid.: 189). Ó Baoill and Matthews conclude that:
the topic/comment sentences in ISL may instead be better described
using the linguistic distinction between theme and rheme. Theme rep-
resents known information, that is information that is not new to the
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 24 10/04/2012 11:00

What Is a Signed Language? 25
receiver. The rheme on the other hand, refers to information that is
new. (189)
Leeson (2001) notes a tendency for topics in ISL to be accompanied by
raised brows (br) and, frequently, head tilted back (htb). The endpoint of the
topic element is often marked by an eyeblink (/eb/), which could be described
as an ‘intonation break’ following Wilbur (1994) and Rosenstein (2000).
Leeson notes that while some of the ISL data examined demonstrate overt
articulation of a head-nod at oset of the topic element, this does not seem
to be obligatory. It may be that the return of the head from its extended posi-
tion in the backwards tilt to the neutral head position has been interpreted
as a head-nod by others commenting on ISL or that head-nodding after
topic marking occurs more frequently in some genres and/or amongst certain
groups of signers. However, overt head-nodding as a marker of oset of topic
was not found to be a frequent occurrence in Leeson’s data. Eyeblink seems
to be a much more consistent marker of clausal boundaries for this purpose,
though she notes that as eyeblinks also mark for oset of non-topic clauses,
this delimits the possibility of identifying topic-phrases on the basis of eye-
blink alone as a nal marker, as in Examples 2.9 and 2.10:
Example 2.9
___________________br /eb/
___________________htb
MORE INFORMATION INDEX+f CONTACT WEBSITE
‘If you need any further information, check out our website’
(Leeson 2001: 228)
Example 2.10
___________________br /eb/
___________________htb
l.a.c.k. OF INTERPRETER MEAN NO ACCESS . . .
‘The lack of interpreters means no access . . .’
(Leeson 2001: 228)
However, eyeblink does not seem to be a compulsory component of the
topic-construction, as evidenced by Example 2.11 where brow raise and head
tilted back suce.
Example 2.11
___________________br
__________________htb
BUT PROBLEM WHAT THEIR ATTITUDE
‘The problem is their attitude’
(Leeson 2001: 228)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 25 10/04/2012 11:00

26 Irish Sign Language
Leeson also notes that the use of the NMF, head-tilted-back also seems to
be gender related in ISL. While younger men use the htb NMF to mark for
topic, women tend not to. We can see this in Example 2.12b where the male
signer is signing LAST MONTH (the topic, setting the temporal scene for the
story to follow) and has his head tilted back and eyebrows raised. In contrast,
in Example 2.12(a), the signer signs CONDUCTOR, marking this referent as
a topic, but her head is in a much more neutral position. Her eyebrows are
raised, however, for the duration of the topic.
Example 2.12
Another important feature of language is that it can be used interchangeably:
all users of a language can send and receive messages. Irish Sign Language
users can therefore produce and understand other signers using ISL, despite
gendered, generational and regional variation existing within the language. ISL
users, like speakers of spoken languages, also engage in turn-taking behaviours
that are rule governed. An understanding of the norms of turn-taking begins
at a very early age in humans, well before the onset of speech (for hearing chil-
dren) or sign (for deaf children). This is an essential part of the framework of
interaction that is necessary for language to be acquired. The strategies used for
turn-taking by ISL users are signalled visually to make use of the visual-spatial
realm and are acquired very early on by deaf infants in Deaf families (Byrne-
Dunne 2005). These include making use of eyegaze, with evidence suggesting
that deaf infants recognise their mothers, and stop crying when they gain eye
contact with their Deaf mothers (ibid.) while adult Deaf interlocutors use
eyegaze to ‘hear’ the message of their interlocutor, and as a strategy for indicat-
ing that they wish to take a turn in discourse (Van Herreweghe 2002). Other
visual mechanisms for turn-taking include waving to get the attention of an
interlocutor, or ashing a light in a room to gain attention from a group. Touch
is also used to gain attention, and this too is rule governed. For example, while
(a) _____________ t (b) _____________ t
CONDUCTOR LAST MONTH
Sarah-Jane (09) Personal Stories (Dublin) Sean (13) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 26 10/04/2012 11:00

What Is a Signed Language? 27
one may touch a potential interlocutor on the shoulder, the arm or the knee, the
back of the head and the chest area are not acceptable points of contact.
Further, language users monitor their use and correct their language
output if they think they have made a mistake. Knowledge of Irish Sign
Language is not automatic. Even for native signers, who are born to Deaf,
ISL-using parents, parts of the system must be learned from other users.
Research evidence shows that humans are born with the capacity to acquire
a natural language, but it also shows that humans must interact with other
speakers or signers of their language in order to acquire it. Further, languages
are typically handed down from one generation to the next. For example, a
child brought up in isolation does not acquire language. We discuss the issue
of language acquisition further in Chapter 3. For now, we can say that the
question of cultural transmission is of particular relevance to a discussion
of signed languages where only 5–10 per cent of deaf children are reared in
Deaf families, with ISL as the primary language. We also know that late
acquisition or language deprivation may have a serious eect on cognition,
particularly when language is delayed beyond the ‘critical period’ (0–3 years).
As we shall also see, Irish Sign Language demonstrates gendered-
generational variation, and increasingly what seem to be the beginnings of
regional variation. Fortunately, another feature of human languages is that
language users can learn other variants of the same language: people can learn
vocabulary that is used in other geographical locations or by another group
of people who share the same language. Language users can also use their
language to discuss language: this is referred to as ‘metalinguistic’ capacity.
2.4 Summary
In this chapter we have looked at the features of natural human language
and seen how these apply equally to languages in a visual-gestural modality,
acknowledging that one of the key benets of the ‘sign language dierential’
framework of research is that it has facilitated a greater degree of understand-
ing of the breadth of what constitutes language. We also considered some
of the myths that have existed relating to signed languages (concreteness,
gesture, damaging for speech, incomplete languages, etc.) and noted that
they are just that – myths, although many have been very damaging for deaf
children as they strove to acquire and develop language. We talk a little more
about this particular context in the next chapter.
Note
1. See ‘Fruit’ at <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4yXP3Z4gqs>
(accessed 25 November 2011).
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 27 10/04/2012 11:00

3 The Historical and Social Context
3.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the history of ISL and introduces the contemporary
context within which it operates. In the rst part of the chapter we outline
the evolution of ISL, which is inextricably linked to the story of the establish-
ment of deaf education in Ireland, and reveals relationships with Langue des
Signes Française (LSF) and British Sign Language (BSL). We also discuss
the ways in which ISL has impacted on other languages, again via an educa-
tional link: for example, Irish Catholic religious orders established schools
for the deaf in Australia, South Africa and the UK, where the language of
instruction was Irish Sign Language. In the second part of the chapter we
discuss the Deaf community in Ireland today, outlining the population of
users, patterns of use of the language, and a range of social issues that impact
on language use. These include education, age of onset of deafness and, cor-
related to this, access to signing models. We discuss the issue of ‘home sign’
(that is, what deaf children use to communicate when their caregivers are not
uent signers) and its relationship to gesture, leading to consideration of how
signers scaold language acquisition between home sign use and ISL. We
then turn to the issue of language variation, examining the variation that has
been noted for ISL across genders, generations and, more recently, regions.
We outline the range of functions that the language serves today and the
legal frameworks that operate to protect the language and language-planning
enterprises that have grown up around it. First, we start with the question:
‘Where does ISL come from?’
3.2 Did someone ‘invent’ ISL?
Frequently, people assume that there must have been a hearing person who
‘created’ or ‘invented’ ISL, but this assumes that the deaf people who were
already in contact with each other before hearing people set up schools for
the deaf did not communicate with each other. While there is scant descrip-
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 28 10/04/2012 11:00

The Historical and Social Context 29
tion of what we might call ‘Old ISL’ looked like, we do know that deaf
people used signs to communicate with each other before the establishment
of schools for the deaf in 1816.
While there is very little written about the social situation of deaf people
and the languages they used before the establishment of the schools, we know
that ancient Irish society was cognisant of the existence of deaf people and
responded to them in terms of dening their legal status and that of their chil-
dren. McDonnell (2010: 13) tells us that in ancient Irish society the rearing
of children was usually the responsibility of both parents. However, if the
mother was deaf or blind, or if she had a mental or physical impairment, the
father was required to take full responsibility for the child. A person who was
Deaf was regarded as having limited legal capacity or responsibility. In legal
cases, a plainti had to take the case against the person’s guardian rather
than against the person him- or herself. Ancient Irish society also thought it
necessary to protect deaf people and a heavy ne was levied on anyone who
mocked a deaf man. However, deafness rendered an individual ineligible for
positions of authority.
McDonnell also notes that there is very strong evidence that ancient Irish
society was aware of the possibility of communication through signing;
however, this signing may have had no connection with deaf people. The
Ogham alphabet was used in writing in Irish from the fourth century CE and
perhaps earlier. The basic alphabet consists of twenty characters, divided into
four distinct sets of ve. In its written form the characters are shown as marks
along a central line as illustrated in Figure 3.1.
As in Figure 3.1, most examples of Ogham survive as stone inscriptions
where the characters are notched into the edge of the stone. However, we
know from the Book of Ballymote (a medieval manuscript published circa
1390) that several dierent forms of Ogham existed, including signed ver-
sions. The three signed versions were known as srón (nose) Ogham, cos (leg)
Ogham and bos (palm) Ogham. In these versions the ngers of one hand
represented the letters on the nose, the leg or the edge of the palm of the other
hand. We might say that Ogham employs two articulators to express each
character, much as signers use dominant and subordinate hands to articulate
signs. Moreover, McDonnell points out that the letters are grouped in sets
of ve, not four or three, which suggests that Ogham was structured around
the hand.
This leads McDonnell to ask a range of intriguing questions: Which came
rst, the signed form or the written form? Did the inventors of Ogham get
the idea from deaf people? While the answers are lost in the mists of time,
we can say that the existence of a signing system in early Irish society shows
an awareness that manual signs could be used to express linguistic meaning,
though sadly, as McDonnell points out, it tells us nothing of people who used
sign as a natural form of communication or of their relations with hearing
society.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 29 10/04/2012 11:00

30 Irish Sign Language
3.3 Schools, policy and language
In modern times, the story of Irish Sign Language is inextricably connected
to the story of Deaf education and educational policy. Given this, this section
oers some detail about the reasons why schools for the deaf were established
in Ireland, the religious and social factors that permeated policy develop-
ment, and the consequences that these have had for signed language use, its
prohibition and consequently, attitudes towards ISL.
3.3.1 The rst schools for the deaf in Ireland
The rst recorded school for the deaf in Ireland was established in 1816,
though it was not until 1889 that the rst report on the education of chil-
dren with disabilities in Ireland and Britain was published by the Royal
Commission (McDonnell 1979). McDonnell notes that the issues raised in
Figure 3.1 Inscription on the Ogham Stone, St Flannan’s Cathedral, Killaloe, Co.
Clare. The stone also bears an inscription in runes. The runes read ‘Thorgrimr
carved this cross’, while the Ogham (shown here) reads ‘A blessing on Thorgrimr’.
(Photo: Lorraine Leeson)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 30 10/04/2012 11:00

The Historical and Social Context 31
that report were identical to those raised by deaf educators in the nineteenth
century. The report also served to lay down some ocial guidelines regarding
the direction that education should take.
McDonnell outlines three issues that set the scene for the establishment of
deaf education in Ireland:
1. The main provisions of the penal code aecting the education of Catholics
was repealed in 1782.
2. Grattan’s parliament expressed concern about education in Ireland (1787
session) and this concern carried through to the establishment of the
Commission of Enquiry into Irish Education in 1806.
3. The activity of Protestant education societies, some of which were overtly
proselytising organisations, who, due to funds from parliament and other
sources, established schools.
McDonnell argues that the vision of bringing enlightenment through edu-
cation was the main motivating factor in the establishment of institutions for
deaf people in Ireland. For example, the rst annual report of the National
Institution for the Education of Deaf and Dumb Children of the Poor in
Ireland reports that:
[the] development of the pupil’s understanding, great as the benet
must be accounted, is yet subordinate to the farther object of improving
his heart and life. To acquaint him with the great truths of Religion; to
open to him the pages of the gospel; to enlist him a disciple of Christ
are the grand purposes of his Education. (National Institution for the
Education of the Deaf and Dumb 1817:13)
However, it also made economic sense to educate deaf children and prepare
them for some kind of ‘useful occupation’ so that they would no longer be a
burden on the public purse (McDonnell 1979). Thus, while moves to establish
schools for the deaf evolved from the desire to provide religious and moral
education, there were also utilitarian, humanitarian and purely educational
factors involved, all of which reected the tenor of the time. From a Deaf
Studies perspective, we can also add that the schools oered an institutional
centre where deaf children came together, and based on their shared experi-
ences and their shared language(s), created community.
3.3.2 Protestant schools
Between 1816, when the rst school for the deaf was established by Dr
Charles Orpen, and 1849, a total of nine institutes for the education of deaf
children were established in Ireland, and two of these closed down after short
periods of time (McDonnell 1979).1 These included four institutions in Ulster,
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 31 10/04/2012 11:00

32 Irish Sign Language
a school in Cork, a preparatory day school for the Claremont Institute in
Dublin, the Claremont Institute (Dublin) and the Catholic Institution for the
Education of the Deaf and Dumb.
Dr Charles Orpen was the most prominent gure in the establishment
of the National Institution for the Education of the Deaf in Ireland (the
Claremont Institute), which was the rst school for deaf children in Ireland.2
While the school, as we have seen above, had an overt mission to bring the
students to God, it also served as
a school of industry, in agricultural, gardening, mechanical and house-
hold occupations [. . .] combined as much as possible with the primary
object instruction in the meaning and use of language [. . .] (Orpen
1836: 54)
The school was established in 1816, with an initial enrolment of eight deaf
pupils. Over time, the school moved premises and registration increased to
forty-three by 1822, and a waiting list of fty children existed. These children
could not be accommodated at the time due to inadequate funding.
The school gradually rose to prominence, with 112 students by 1840.
However, from the 1860s onwards the school suered from declining
numbers, with just twenty-seven students enrolled in 1891 (McDonnell
1979). While the Claremont Institute may have lost students to the Catholic
Institution, McDonnell notes that it may have lost students to the Ulster
Institution too. By 1891, the Ulster Institution had eighty-ve students
enrolled. As a result, the school, having moved to Monkstown, Co. Dublin,
in 1943, nally closed in 1978 (Pollard 2006).
In general, the Irish institutions did not teach the students to speak, and
Claremont Institute was no exception in this matter. It was not until 1887
that it reported changing from a manual system to an oral system of instruc-
tion. As the original headmaster was educated at Thomas Braidwood’s
school in Edinburgh, which was established in the 1780s, Woll and Sutton-
Spence (2007) point out that he must have known BSL, and we know that
up until the twentieth century, graduates of the Claremont Institute used the
two-handed BSL alphabet. For some thirty years, the Claremont Institute
was the main school for the deaf in Dublin, and even though most of the chil-
dren registered with the school were Catholic, the school taught a Protestant
doctrine (ibid.). However, with the advent of the Catholic institutions, the
language used by contemporary nineteenth-century deaf people was about to
shift dramatically.
3.3.3 The Catholic response
A small Catholic school was established in Cork in 1822, and as time went
on, the Roman Catholic clergy believed that a response to the (as they saw
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 32 10/04/2012 11:00

The Historical and Social Context 33
it) proselytising of deaf children was needed. In fact, McDonnell (1979)
notes that some of the factors inuencing the establishment of the Catholic
Institution for the Education of the Deaf and Dumb in 1846 were identical
to those that inuenced Dr Orpen in 1816. A Vincentian priest, Fr Thomas
McNamara, had visited Caen in Normandy, France, and experienced the
way that education was being delivered to deaf children at the Le Bon
Sauveur school. He returned believing that a similar institution was required
in Ireland. McNamara was also aware of the existence of the Claremont
Institute and believed that ‘wholesale proselytism’ was being carried out there
(ibid.: 13). At this point, all institutions oering education to deaf children in
Ireland were Protestant, with the exception of a school in Cork, St Mary’s of
the Isle. McDonnell notes that the establishment of the Catholic Institution
was, in part, a response to the belief that all Protestant institutions engaged
in proselytism. However, arrangements for the establishment of a Catholic
Institution were not conrmed until the mid 1840s, with provisional accom-
modation provided for a small group of girls with the Dominican Sisters in
Cabra, Dublin, in 1846. By 1849, new accommodation had been built, allow-
ing the numbers to expand to fty. The story of the connection to France in
the establishment of St Mary’s is worth considering here: in establishing St
Mary’s, it became clear that the Dominican Sisters who would manage and
run the school would have to develop a system for teaching deaf children.
To this end, two Dominican nuns travelled with two Deaf girls, Agnes
Beedan and Mary Ann Dougherty, aged eight and nine respectively, to Caen
to study teaching methods that utilised signed language (Coogan 2003; Crean
1997; Matthews 1996a; McDonnell 1979). The question of why they went to
Caen is one worth asking. It is reported that the nuns made initial inquiries
with the Braidwoods in the UK regarding the possibility of their studying the
Braidwood system, but cost was a factor. It may also have been the case that
given the religious backdrop to this story, they wished to avoid a Protestant
connection (but this is speculative), and ultimately, they went to the Le Bon
Sauveur school, where a form of signed French was used in teaching, though
it is fair to speculate that amongst themselves, the children used contempo-
rary French Sign Language (LSF).
The Dominican Sisters adapted the French methodical signing system
to one suited to teaching English to those attending St Mary’s School for
Deaf Girls. What we should bear in mind is that the two deaf girls may have
already been in contact with other deaf children before they were brought to
France. Even if they were not, we know that there were Irish deaf people edu-
cated in the Protestant schools from 1816 onwards, and by this point in time,
there would have been many graduates of the system and the probability is
that alumni communicated using the language they had acquired and devel-
oped at school, which we could for convenience call ‘Old ISL’. This will have
been inuenced by BSL varieties used in the Protestant schools and whatever
variants that uneducated deaf people may have used at the time. Given this,
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 33 10/04/2012 11:00

34 Irish Sign Language
we cannot assume that there was a tabula rasa context in existence in terms of
language used by Irish Deaf people before the establishment of the Catholic
schools, and therefore we assume that the form of ‘Modern ISL’ that arose as
a result of the French connection built on and integrated with ‘Old ISL’. We
should also bear in mind that as the nuns attempted to modify the form of
signed French that they learned to map onto the grammar of English so that
they could teach through a form of signed English, there is also an English
language inuence on the forms of signs, which is noticeable in terms of the
extent of initialisation in ISL that remains to this day. Despite this, some LSF
signs were borrowed directly. For example, one of the contemporary signs
for FRIDAY is articulated with a V-handshape at the chin, maintaining the
connection to the French ‘vendredi’ (Matthews 1996b).
Yet another issue is that the two Irish deaf girls would have developed a
means of communication between themselves, which may have been predi-
cated on home signs (which we discuss later in this chapter), but which were
also probably inuenced by the LSF they encountered when engaging with
their deaf peers in Caen. All of this serves to illustrate that the path to con-
temporary ISL was not an uncomplicated one.
The committee responsible for the establishment of the Catholic Institution
also approached the Christian Brothers regarding the establishment of a
school for Deaf boys (Matthews 1996b). The initial oer was turned down
by the Christian Brothers and so the committee approached the Carmelite
monks for the use of Prospect Seminary in Glasnevin, where there was
accommodation for forty pupils. The school opened in 1849 and initially
admitted eleven boys. By 1854, overcrowding led to the establishment of a
new building and the Committee again approached the Christian Brothers,
who, in 1856, agreed to take over the management of the boys’ school.
When St Joseph’s School for Deaf Boys was established a decade later, the
Christian Brothers used the same signing system used by the Dominicans,
though alterations were made to the form of many signs. Crean (1997) sug-
gests that the Christian Brothers at St Joseph’s School drew on published ref-
erences to American Sign Language in their preparations for teaching Deaf
boys. Folk belief has it that the Christian Brothers wished to make the signs
they learned from the Dominican Sisters less feminine and more masculine
so as to be appropriate to the teaching of young boys (Leeson and Grehan
2004).
What the deliberate modication of the signing systems used did, coupled
with the relative isolation of the girls from the boys, was to create the context
for the development of a signicant gendered generational variant, which we
discuss further below.
An overview of the inuences on ISL in the nineteenth century can be seen
in Figure 3.2.
In 1857, a total of sixty-eight boys transferred to St Joseph’s in Cabra.
McDonnell (1979) notes that this was the last major institution for the educa-
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 34 10/04/2012 11:00

The Historical and Social Context 35
tion of deaf children established in Ireland in the nineteenth century. By 1891,
the Catholic Institution had, between St Mary’s and St Joseph’s, 421 students
enrolled in its schools.
Two further Catholic schools for Deaf girls were established in the nine-
teenth century, both by the Sisters of Mercy: one in Cork, which opened in
1858 and closed in 1900, and a second in Co. Westmeath, which was estab-
lished in 1892 and ceased admitting Deaf girls in 1936.
The twentieth century saw the establishment of Mary Immaculate School
for Deaf Children. Beechpark School (as it was known) was established in
1956 following from a request by Archbishop Charles McQuaid (Matthews
1996b). The objective was to educate Deaf boys aged 3–10 years in an oral
manner. Beechpark was to serve as a preparatory school for St Joseph’s
School for Deaf Boys in Cabra, and was also specically geared to serve the
parents of Deaf boys living on Dublin’s southside (Crean 1997), although it
seems that most children were boarders from outside Dublin (John Bosco
Conama, personal communication, 6 July 2007). Beechpark School closed
in 1998.
The other school established in the twentieth century was the Mid-West
School for Hearing Impaired Children (also known as the Limerick School
Figure 3.2 Major inuences on the development of ISL in the nineteenth century.
(After Suzanne Bussiere, personal communication, January 2010)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 35 10/04/2012 11:00

36 Irish Sign Language
for the Deaf). Established in 1979, the school aims to provide local education
for children in the Limerick, Tipperary, Clare and Kerry regions.
Leeson (2007) suggested that the establishment of the Mid-West School
opened the way for a variant of ISL to emerge because students no longer had
access to the cohorts at St Joseph’s and St Mary’s, where most deaf people
attended school. Conama (2008) found that this was the case in practice:
Deaf people interviewed in a review of sign language interpreting provision in
the Mid-West reported that they did not always understand what they called
‘Dublin signing’.
3.4 Educational policy and sign language
As we have seen, religious instruction was a primary goal of education of
deaf children in the nineteenth century, and underpinned the establishment
of the schools themselves. However, there was also a strong emphasis on
industrial training, with the Census Commissioners of 1851 recommending
that the amount of time given to this goal be considerable (McDonnell 1979).
However, literacy was also considered key. McDonnell writes that:
Literary instruction was necessary in order to achieve the religious
and vocational aims of the institutions and language was the central
subject on the curriculum. The deaf child had not acquired language in
the usual manner and so it had to be taught as a subject. The emphasis
was on grammar and on the grammatical structure of written patterns.
Exercises in identifying the dierent parts of speech were begun at an
early stage. Reading and writing were two other important parts of
language instruction. (49)
The focus on language and the issue of how to best educate deaf children
is at the heart of the ‘oral–manual’ debate, which has been ongoing since
the eighteenth century (Leeson 2006). Given the focus on teaching language
through a signed modality, it comes as no surprise to learn that signed English
was the preferred means of delivering education to deaf children. Despite the
shift towards oralism in the late 1800s and the infamous resolutions adopted
by the Congress of Milan (1880), the Irish schools maintained a steadfast
‘manual’ approach until the mid twentieth century (Lane et al. 1996).
The Congress had passed a number of resolutions, including the following:
(1) The Congress, considering the incontestable superiority of speech
over signs in restoring the deaf-mute to social life and for giving
him greater facility in language, declares that the method of aic-
tion should have preference over that of signs in the instruction and
education of the deaf and dumb
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 36 10/04/2012 11:00

The Historical and Social Context 37
(2) Considering that the simultaneous use of signs and speech has the
disadvantage of injuring speech, lip reading and the precision of
ideas, the Congress declares that the pure oral method ought to be
preferred. (Ibid.: 61)
Prior to 1880, in what is often considered the ‘enlightened era’ for deaf
education, the use of signed languages in the education of deaf people in
Europe was dominant and many Deaf teachers were employed in schools for
the deaf. France was the leading light, with Abbé Charles-Michel de l’Épée’s
(1712–1789) approach to deaf education studied by educationalists across the
world, including, as we have seen, the Irish Dominicans.
By 1880, however, opinion had shifted and the congress delegates, who
were mostly hearing educators of the deaf, gathered in Milan, where they
voted to exclude overtly the use of signed languages and signed modes in
deaf education. An oral approach, focusing on the teaching of speech which
had originally been developed by the German teacher of the deaf, Samuel
Heinicke (1728–90), was advocated, and had as its aim the ‘demutement’ of
deaf people by the use and adaptation of the oral language of the hearing
majority (Heinicke, cited in List et al. 1999). We should emphasise here that
oral approaches had been in place in many countries earlier in the nineteenth
century, but the Congress gave added weight to the approach and formalised
the policy (McDonnell 2010). It is important to stress that while the delegates
at the Congress of Milan and many proponents of oralism since have believed
that the use of a sign language will in some way ‘damage’ capacity to learn
a spoken language, there is no empirical evidence to support such a claim
(Marschark and Spencer 2009).
As a result of the policies advocated by the Congress of Milan, deaf teach-
ers at schools for the deaf were dismissed, signed languages were banned
from the classroom and those who could not progress with a speech-based
approach were labelled ‘oral failures’, segregated from the ‘oral successes’,
and frequently stigmatised.3 Children who used signed languages were seen
as ‘mentally retarded’ in many cases, and in many countries were punished
for using a signed language (Leeson 2006).
It was not until 1887 that the Claremont Institute reported changing from
a manual system to an oral system of instruction. McDonnell suggests that
this late shift to oralism in Ireland resulted from a combination of factors
including the scarcity of trained teachers, the large numbers of pupils and
the lack of the nancial resources required to implement speech training.
Instead, the methods reported by Fr John Burke, Chaplain of the Catholic
Institution, to the audience at a public examination of students in Carlow
were (1) signs: natural and methodical; (2) dactylology; and (3) the analysis
of written language (McDonnell 1979). By natural signs, we may assume
that Burke meant the signs and gestures used by the children in their com-
munication. ‘Methodical signs’ refers to a form of signed English, where each
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 37 10/04/2012 11:00

38 Irish Sign Language
individual sign relates to an English word or a part of speech (for example,
a sign to mark the –s plural form, a sign to mark past tense, a sign to mark
the auxiliary will, etc.). Dactylology refers to ngerspelling words (that is,
where a particular position of the ngers relates to a letter from the English
alphabet).
When the Royal Commissioners visited the Ulster Institution in 1887, a
small class was being taught orally, though they were educated with their peers
who were being taught manually or using the ‘combined system’ of speech and
sign (McDonnell 1979). Thus the learning environment was an impediment
to learning orally. A further seventeen students were being taught through
a combined oral–manual system (what is called ‘Total Communication’ or
‘Simultaneous Communication’– shortened to ‘SimCom’). Another sixty-one
pupils were taught manually. Thus all students had access to sign language
within the classroom, despite dierent methods being applied to dierent
cohorts, and, we must assume, outside the classroom too. At that time,
teachers reported that the students who were considered most intelligent
were those educated via the Total Communication approach. However, in St
Joseph’s School for Deaf Boys, the pupils were taught through sign and the
Commissioners reported that the instruction was ‘careful and the results were
very good’ (McDonnell 1979: 62, emphasis added). The Catholic Institution
was aware of the ongoing debate regarding oral versus manual approaches to
education following from the Congress of Milan, but believed that without
signicant nancial resources, it could not abandon the manual approach to
education (Catholic Institution for the Deaf and Dumb 1881: 17).
It was not until the mid twentieth century that this shift occurred. St
Mary’s School for Deaf Girls introduced oralism in 1947, following from Sr
Nicholas’s time studying in Manchester University under Sir Alexander and
Lady Irene Ewing, well-established proponents of oral education. In 1951,
following a number of visits to oral schools in Caen (France), Brussels and
Ghent (Belgium), and a visit to St Michielsgestel School (Netherlands), Sr
Nicholas introduced a policy of highly segregated education for deaf and
hard of hearing students at St Mary’s, inuenced by the St Michielsgestel
school, where Van Uden developed the ‘maternal reective method’ of
oralism, which heavily inuenced the work of Sr Griey, who introduced seg-
regation of ‘oral failures’ from ‘oral successes’ in the 1960s (Knoors 1999).4
While oralism had been dominant in Europe from 1880, it began to wane
in many countries in the 1970s, when research showed the underachieve-
ment of deaf children (Vestberg 1999). In many countries, this led to re-
evaluation of policy and the introduction of what became known as Total
Communication. In turn, many countries moved towards bilingual education
for the deaf in the 1980s, and this approach is well established in Scandinavia
(Heiling 1999).
The fact that literacy skills were lower for deaf children educated in the UK
was known to Sr Nicholas before she introduced an oral policy in St Mary’s.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 38 10/04/2012 11:00

The Historical and Social Context 39
She writes that the written standard of the British deaf children in schools she
visited did not match the standard of Cabra, and cites a letter she received
from a past pupil working in London, whose niece was about to be admitted
to St Mary’s:
You can teach her to speak but be sure that she is able to write down the
thoughts of her mind. I meet deaf people here who cannot write what
they want to say, or read what is written. (Griey 1994: 44)
Unfortunately, functional illiteracy followed the introduction of a strict
oralist policy in Ireland for the majority of deaf children, aecting deaf
children who attended all of the schools for the deaf in Ireland (James et al.
1992). This is also reected in empirical studies of Deaf adults (Conroy 2006;
Matthews 1996a).
It is important to note that St Mary’s operated outside of the control of
the Department of Education until September 1952. Indeed, Griey herself,
describing the initial shift to oralism in the late 1940s, wrote: ‘Since there was
no involvement on the part of the Department of Education we were free to
make plans for the development of an oral atmosphere in the school’ (1994:
47).
As recently as 1952, the Department of Education did not even know
where St Mary’s school was located and knew very little about the education
of deaf children (ibid.: 57). However, if, in 1952, the Department knew little
regarding the education of the deaf, it is feasible to surmise that they turned
to Sr Nicholas for advice. Despite the fact that she states that she had reserva-
tions about the move towards oralism (ibid.), Sr Nicholas was very vocal in
her push for an oral policy in education, but this did not come into eect until
1972, with the government publication of The Education of Children who are
Handicapped by Impaired Hearing (Department of Education 1972).
In the interim, an inuencing factor behind St Joseph’s shift to an oral
policy in 1957 seems to have been the establishment of Beechpark School
in 1956: it would be responsible for the boys’ continuing education (Crean
1997). Indeed, Crean notes that St Joseph’s shifted to oralism following from
an ‘express request’ (original emphasis) from Archbishop McQuaid in 1952.
From Sr Griey’s writings, it is clear that she was inuential and had the ear
of the Archbishop for many years. Thus, oral policy in the schools seems to
have been introduced in a de facto manner as a result of the inuence that
Sr Nicholas Griey had on Archbishop McQuaid, who in turn inuenced
the Christian Brothers. Earlier, Christian Brothers’ representatives had in
1948 visited nineteen oral schools in the UK, but decided to remain with the
manual approach to education (ibid.). It is also possible that the fact that the
Claremont School had established oral training, and that Catholic parents
were also sending their children to Britain for oral training around this time,
also increased pressure on St Mary’s to oer oral training locally.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 39 10/04/2012 11:00

40 Irish Sign Language
The outcomes of the shift to a strict oralist regime have been well docu-
mented (Conama and Grehan 2002; Conroy 2006; Crean 1997; Griey 1994;
Leeson 2007). However, it is important to note that oral instruction itself –
that is, the inclusion of some speech training rather than a rigidly enforced
oralist approach with no place for sign language – was not seen as a problem
by the Deaf community in Ireland in the 1940s. This remains true today
(Leeson 2007). The major problem was that the implementation of a strictly
enforced oralist policy went hand in hand with the rigid suppression of sign
language use, which in turn made it virtually impossible for many students
to access the curriculum, since they could not understand what their teach-
ers were saying. Students report being forced to sit on their hands, confess
signing as a sin, and give up sign language for Lent (Grehan 2008; Leeson
and Grehan 2004; McDonnell and Saunders 1993). All of this resulted in ISL
being forced underground.
The physical segregation of students who signed from those who spoke
led to the establishment of a hierarchy within the schools that suggested that
those who spoke were more intelligent than those who signed. This was rein-
forced by the fact that for many years, only those who were considered ‘oral
successes’ could sit state examinations.
The segregation of girls from boys for educational purposes in Catholic
schools remains widespread in Ireland today, but particularly in the period
between 1856 (when St Joseph’s was established) and the 1950s (when
oralism had its heyday in the Irish Catholic schools), led to the develop-
ment of a gendered-generational lexicon that the anthropologist Barbara
LeMaster describes as the most startling dierences ever recorded. We
discuss this gender dierentiation further below.
Each group of students in the ‘deaf and dumb’, ‘partial deaf (oral)’ and
‘profoundly deaf (oral)’ sections formed ‘communication islands’ (Grehan
2008), and given their relative segregation from each other and the stigma
associated with communicating across what we might call the oral–sign
divide, cohort-specic variation ourished, but shifted across generations of
signers. The process of inventing signs continued and the meanings of these
signs are dicult to translate into equivalent single English words. Leeson
and Grehan’s study (2004) focused on Deaf women who were enrolled in oral
education and some were already halfway through their educational careers
when signing was banned. They concluded by noting that the women’s signs
are still used by women ranging in age from mid twenties to their late fties
today. Thus we can claim that gendered signing still exists in ISL, and that
the extent and nature of that variation has yet not been fully documented.
This philosophy of strict segregation was, as noted earlier, ratied by the
1972 Advisory Committee on the education of the Deaf and hard of hearing,
who saw sign language as something of a last resort for children, most of
whom the authors of the report saw as having ‘additional handicaps’, and who
were ‘not capable of making adequate progress when taught by oral methods
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 40 10/04/2012 11:00

The Historical and Social Context 41
alone’ (Department of Education 1972: 69–70, original emphasis). Parents –
both hearing and deaf – were also advised that they should not sign to their
deaf children, and deaf siblings were told they could not sign to each other.
This created several generations of Irish Deaf people who could not eec-
tively communicate with their parents, and whose literacy skills were highly
problematic (James et al. 1992).
It is important to remember that these issues were not unique to Ireland.
However, as we have seen, the Catholic Schools in Ireland introduced
oralism much later than schools in other countries, and consequently,
Ireland has been much slower to move towards bilingual education than
other countries, though a shift towards Total Communication did occur
in the 1980s. Total Communication (or Simultaneous Communication,
‘SimCom’) became widely used across Europe in the 1980s and was hailed
as a means of reintroducing a signed component into the classroom without
losing the oral element. Total Communication has been severely criticised as
the rated of speech and signing are not the same: teachers typically simplify
the spoken component of their message or leave out aspects of manual com-
munication (Baker and Knight 1988) and since aspects of the grammar of
signed languages are expressed on the face (adverbs, questions, negation,
etc.), the co-occurrence of speech with signed elements blocks out these
signals, leading to incomplete messages in both modalities. However, recent
research (Marschark and Spencer 2009) suggests that this may not always be
the case though Total Communication is still widely used in schools for the
deaf.
This contrasts with some other countries like Finland, Sweden and
Denmark, where Total Communication was introduced in the 1960s. By
the 1980s bilingual education was being introduced in Scandinavia (Heiling
1999) and today is a developing force in the UK (Powers et al. 1998).
The dominant approach to education for deaf children in the Western
world during the 1960s and 1970s was oralism (see Brelje 1999 for examples),
stemming from the twin beliefs that deaf children must be rehabilitated to
succeed in a hearing environment, and that signed languages were not real
languages and would harm the acquisition of speech (which echoes the views
put forward at the 1880 Congress of Milan, described earlier). The view of
signed languages as ‘real’ languages, coupled with the seriously poor aca-
demic achievement of students educated orally, has led to the re-evaluation
of educational approaches (see Brelje 1999 for examples). In contrast to pre-
oral Ireland where literacy was the educational objective, oral communica-
tion became the priority and ‘the use of any formal sign system has no place’
(Watson 1998: 76).
However, this approach failed to account for the fact that deaf children
acquiring English do not follow normal development patterns for acquisi-
tion, especially if acquisition is delayed (Woll 1998) as is the case for many
deaf children in Ireland (Griey 1994). It also does not take account of the
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 41 10/04/2012 11:00

42 Irish Sign Language
fact that ‘Children who have not acquired uency in a rst language by the age
of ve do not subsequently catch up either in a signed or spoken language’ (Woll
1998: 65, emphasis added; see also Mayberry and Eichen 1991; Loncke et al.
1990). Further, Irish deaf children’s cognitive potential, which is the same
as that of their hearing peers on the basis of performance IQ (MacSweeney
1998), has not been realised: literacy rates for deaf children graduating from
schools with oral policies typically are equivalent to those of 8–9-year-old
hearing children (James et al. 1992). Powers et al. (1998) note the almost lack
of longitudinal studies on deaf children’s attainment and the lack of appro-
priate assessments for deaf children.
By the early 1990s, the Irish Deaf Society was calling for ISL/English
bilingualism, and since then, growing awareness of the linguistic status of
signed languages, coupled with a societal shift that engages in dialogue with
minority communities and takes on board the recommendations that emerge
from such direct experience, has led to greater acceptance of the fact that,
regardless of residual hearing level, many deaf and hard of hearing people
identify with the Deaf community and thus use Irish Sign Language as their
preferred language.
The early twenty-rst century has shown that the use of a signed language
as the language of instruction, as employed in the early days of deaf educa-
tion, leads to educational success for deaf people. From most of the deaf
and hard of hearing people who forwarded submissions to the government’s
Advisory Committee from 2001–4 (reported on in Leeson 2007), the overrid-
ing message is that Irish Sign Language is the key to accessing information
and ISL must be the language of instruction in schools for the deaf in order to
facilitate age-appropriate learning. In 2010, the Education Task Force com-
prising representation from the Catholic Institute for Deaf People, the Irish
Deaf Society, DeafHear.ie and the Centre for Deaf Studies, Trinity College
Dublin, launched a policy that, among other things, acknowledges the place
of ISL in deaf education. This is something that parents of and organisations
for the deaf support (Leeson 2007).
Finally, it is worth noting that this Irish call mirrors the international
demand for recognition of signed languages in education at the very highest
levels, including, most recently, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons
with a Disability (2006), which Ireland signed in March 2007 but has not yet
ratied.
3.5 ISL and other signed languages
We have described ISL as a language that developed with inuences from
British Sign Language and American Sign Language in the nineteenth
century. In the twentieth century, ISL became a language that was severely
suppressed and isolated. Yet, particularly in the nineteenth century, ISL
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 42 10/04/2012 11:00

The Historical and Social Context 43
was also a language that travelled with missionaries, and in some cases deaf
migrants, to Australia and South Africa. ISL also made its way to Scotland
and other parts of the UK via religious orders engaging in Deaf education
and with Deaf emigrants leaving Ireland.
3.5.1 ISL in Australia
The rst Catholic school for deaf children in Australia was Rosary School,
Waratah, established in 1875 by Irish nuns. They brought Irish signs to
Australia and what Robert Adam refers to as Australian Irish Sign Language
was used in Australian Catholic schools until the 1950s (Robert Adam,
personal communication, 2010). Johnston (1989) reports that in Australia,
two ngerspelling systems are in use: (1) the two-handed alphabet that has
its basis in BSL, which is most commonly used; and (2) the one-handed
ISL alphabet. He notes that Australian Deaf people who were educated in
Catholic schools were taught this form, but that through mixing with other
deaf people most learn the two-handed variety as well. He also notes that
this eectively means that that from the earliest days of signing in Australia,
there has been a ‘Catholic’ variety, based in ISL, and a ‘Protestant’ variety,
based in BSL. What is interesting is that there seems to be a diglossic context
in operation with respect to the use of ISL variants: while those who use an
ISL-inuenced variant can typically also use the BSL-based variant, those
who use the BSL variant do not use the ISL variant. Johnston also points
out that the one-handed ASL ngerspelled alphabet is growing in popular-
ity because of the global prestige of ASL. Beyond the level of ngerspelling,
Johnston notes that partly because of the inuence of ISL and partly as a
result of Australia’s geographic isolation, Auslan grew to become distinct
from BSL. While Stokoe (1974) suggested that Auslan was a descendent of
ISL, Johnston notes that the evidence does not support this claim; instead,
Auslan can be seen as a descendent of BSL (Deuchar 1984) with some inu-
ence from ISL.
The ISL inuence is a direct result of the establishment of schools for the
deaf in the early years of colonisation of Australia, leading Johnston to note
that:
Since a large proportion of Australia’s early immigrants were Irish,
both free settlers and convicts, the role of the Catholic Church should
come as no surprise. Irish Catholics who were dedicated to the welfare
of the deaf brought with them Irish signs and the one-handed alpha-
bet. The alphabet was clearly borrowed from the French one-handed
alphabet and the signs were presumably a mixture of indigenous Irish
signs with French borrowings.5 France was another Catholic country
so we can assume that the connections between them were fairly strong.
(1989: 17)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 43 10/04/2012 11:00

44 Irish Sign Language
What we do not know is the extent to which ISL has permeated the Auslan
lexicon and syntax, and as a result, how much of the Australian ISL variant
has become integrated within contemporary Auslan.
3.5.2 ISL in South Africa
A rather dierent story is that of ISL in South Africa. Aarons and Reynolds
(2003) note that in South Africa, the history of signed language is deeply
entwined with apartheid schooling policies and complex language policies.
They also point out that speech was considered as more prestigious than
signing by the authorities, with the result that schools for white deaf children
insisted on oral education while those for other races allowed some form of
signed language, in most cases a mixture of speech and some signs.
In 1863, the Vicar Apostolic of the Cape of Good Hope, Dr Grimley, invited
the Irish Dominican Sisters to work in South Africa. Dr Grimley had previous
associations with the education of the deaf in Dublin, which led to this invita-
tion being issued. Sr Dympna Kinsella, the superior of the group of six nuns
who travelled from Cabra to the Cape of Good Hope, began to teach some deaf
children on her arrival in a purely voluntary capacity, but given the demands
on her time, it became clear that a dedicated teacher of the deaf was needed.
This led to the immigration of Miss Bridget Lynne. What is particularly inter-
esting here is that Bridget Lynne was a deaf past pupil of St Mary’s School for
the Deaf in Cabra, and had trained to teach there. She travelled to the Cape of
Good Hope in 1873 and ran the school until 1886 or 1887 (Sr Margaret Wall,
Archivist, Region House, Cape Town, personal communication, 2010).
The methods employed during the nineteenth century at St Mary’s (later
known as the Grimley Institute and now known as the Dominican-Grimley
School) involved both ngerspelling and conventional signing. Despite the
wide range of spoken languages in existence in South Africa, the written
language taught was English; and despite the racial politics that existed, the
school catered to all race groups (Aarons and Reynolds 2003). In 1920,
the school introduced the oral approach – this coincides with the timing of
the sisters taking on the running of the school for the deaf from lay principals
in 1918 (Sr Margaret Wall, Archivist, Region House, Cape Town, personal
communication, 2010). Aarons and Reynolds (2003) note that the shift to
oralism at the Grimley Institute followed from a visit to a Dominican School
run by some German sisters in Kingwilliamstown, leading to the decision
that ‘all but the most “backward” children would be taught using the oral
method’ (198).
In 1937, the Irish Dominicans opened another separate school for ‘non-
European’, ‘coloured’ and African deaf children at Wittebome in Cape
Town. In 1953, with the tightening of the apartheid policy of segregation,
the Nationalist government declared that the school was to register only
coloured deaf children. In the 1960s, the now white Grimley School for
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 44 10/04/2012 11:00

The Historical and Social Context 45
the Deaf moved to Hout Bay and adopted a strict policy of oralism. This
oral approach continues to the present day, with the school’s motto being:
‘Academic Success through the spoken word’.6
What is clear is that the presence of Bridget Lynne, an adult Deaf woman
in a position of inuence, and a sign language user who had been taught
through the Dominicans’ manual approach, would have been very inu-
ential on the cohorts of children she taught. What we do not know is how
much signed English was used and what place, if any, ISL had in formal
educational instruction. We also have no idea if or to what extent the form
of language used in teaching at the Dominican school was inuenced by local
signed languages. It is also not yet clear what happened after the introduc-
tion of oralism in the 1920s: was a South African variant of ISL maintained
or did some other variant develop in its place, based on home signing devel-
oped by the children? It is suggested that while the principle of oral education
was introduced circa 1925, this approach was not strictly implemented until
the 1960s (Sr Margaret Wall, personal communication, 2010), allowing for
an embedding of signed language in education for a century, with an ISL-
inuenced substrate at its heart. What we can say is that for graduates of the
Wittebome School, even today, some signs used are identiable as ‘dierent’
from other dialects of South African Sign Language (SASL), and there are
a number of handshapes that seem to come from ISL. These include the
handshapes for i, e, h, p, q, s and g (Meryl Glaser, personal communication,
2010). Sr Rennee Rossouw (personal communication, 2010) adds that the
South African Deaf Community,7 who are responsible for the development
of teaching materials in SASL, tend to leave out the Wittebome dialect from
any descriptions of SASL given that it diers so signicantly from how
SASL patterns. This includes use of the ISL alphabet in initialised signs, for
example. However, for the Deaf Community Centre of Cape Town (DCCT),
the Wittebome dialect is considered a core part of SASL (ibid.).
3.5.3 ISL in the UK
We have seen that although the education of Irish deaf children was estab-
lished while Ireland formed part of the United Kingdom, ISL developed
independently of BSL. The usage of BSL or ISL traditionally related to edu-
cation in a Protestant school such as the Claremont Institute or a Catholic
school such as St Mary’s or St Joseph’s. The link between creed and language
was exported, as we have seen above, to Australia and South Africa, with
the Irish Dominican Sisters. The language was also brought to the UK,
for example with Irish religious orders teaching at St Vincent’s School for
the Deaf in Glasgow. This was also the case in Northern Ireland, where
Catholic children were traditionally educated in the Dublin schools for the
deaf, acquiring ISL as their working signed language, while Protestant deaf
children were historically taught through BSL.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 45 10/04/2012 11:00

46 Irish Sign Language
Even today, British Catholics’ signing is heavily inuenced by Irish Sign
Language because Irish religious orders have delivered Catholic education in
the UK and many chaplains to the Catholic Deaf community have been Irish
(Sutton-Spence and Woll 1999). Sutton-Spence and Woll go on to note that
the form of signing used by Catholics in the UK draws heavily on initialised
signs based on the Irish manual alphabet. Beyond the religious connection,
ISL also serves as a donor language for some BSL dialects, including London,
Glasgow and Liverpool dialects. Sutton-Spence and Woll report that this is
because these cities include large Roman Catholic communities who have
strong links to Ireland. It is also interesting to note that the founder of the
British Deaf and Dumb Association (now the British Deaf Association) was
an Irish Deaf man, Francis Maginn.8
Of course, language contact does not necessarily operate in one direction:
contemporary ISL is also inuenced by BSL but it is important to point out
that while some BSL signs may be recent borrowings from BSL, others may
reect the original BSL substrate from the 1800s, with some elderly Irish
Deaf people knowing, though not necessarily using in their everyday lives,
the two-handed manual alphabet, while the sign for GUINNESS (beer) is
articulated with two BSL G-handshapes, a sign not found in BSL (Woll and
Sutton-Spence 2007). Further, ISL signers have access to BSL through con-
tacts with the Deaf community in Northern Ireland and through access to the
British media, which provides a wide range of programming in BSL (Leeson
2005; Sutton-Spence and Woll 1999).
3.6 Who uses Irish Sign Language today?
Having looked at the historical development of ISL, we now turn to the
present and the language’s current situation, beginning by asking who its
users are. The core users are the members of the Irish Deaf community. In
addition to ISL usage, the characteristic features of this Deaf community
include identiable cultural and behavioural norms, similar educational
experiences, endogamous marriage patterns, close community ties, and a
strong sense of communion with other Deaf people both nationally and
internationally.9 These characteristics dierentiate members of the Irish Deaf
Community from non-sign language users, including those who are hard of
hearing or who become deafened after they have acquired a spoken language
(‘post-lingually’ deaf), but who use spoken language as their preferred means
of interaction. These people do not typically enter the Deaf community and
instead function within the majority culture of their territories (Ladd 2003;
Mindess 1999). Furthermore, deafened people often see their deafness as
a problem which may be mitigated by medical intervention or therapy, for
example cochlear implantation or speech and language therapy. In contrast,
many people who are born deaf or who become deaf before they acquire
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 46 10/04/2012 11:00

The Historical and Social Context 47
language see being deaf as their natural state of being: that is, they do not
experience deafness as a medical problem requiring a solution. Instead, they
see recognition of their language as the central issue, and from this ows a
demand for the provision of services in their language. The call for recogni-
tion of signed languages as the rst step in facilitating full citizenship by
Deaf people is central to the agenda of the Irish Deaf Society, and is the core
mission of the European Union of the Deaf and the World Federation of the
Deaf.
If we attempt to identify how many Deaf ISL users there are, we can follow
the international rule of thumb and suggest that approximately one person
in every thousand is a signed language user (Conama 2008; Johnston 2006),
which suggests that there are close to half a million Deaf signed language
users in the EU. An estimated 6,500 Irish Deaf people use ISL, with approxi-
mately 5,000 Deaf ISL users in the Republic (Matthews 1996b) and 1,500
in Northern Ireland (Janet Beck, personal communication, 2009). These
people consider themselves to be ‘Deaf’ with a capital D, that is members
of a linguistic, cultural community as opposed to people with a sensory
disability.10
The largest populations of Deaf people are found in and around the major
cities and towns of Ireland. In great part, this is because there are opportuni-
ties for people to come together to socialise and to provide support networks
for each other in these locations. While patterns of community organisation
have changed over time, often due to the availabilities of new technologies,
Deaf communities value ‘face to face’ communication, and the fact that ISL
is a visual language without a written form supports this. But it goes much
deeper than the fact that ISL is expressed in a visual modality. Deaf commu-
nities value and trust information that is delivered in a face-to-face manner
more than information presented in written form (Mindess 1999). For Irish
Deaf people, this may in part be because the people who deliver the informa-
tion to them in ISL are typically known and therefore their trustworthiness
has been tested within the community already. We say this because the Irish
Deaf community is small, and membership of the Deaf community is predi-
cated on active engagement with other members of the Deaf community.
Given this, it is highly unlikely that one Irish Deaf person who is an active,
engaged member will come across another Irish Deaf person that he or she
does not know who is also actively engaged in the community unless that
person is signicantly older or younger than him or her. With the widespread
education of deaf children in mainstream settings, however, we suggest that
this community demographic is likely to change.
Other people who use ISL include a growing number of friends, family
members and teachers of the deaf, interpreters, and those who work with
Deaf people in a range of capacities, including chaplains, social workers and
psychologists. However, given that Deaf people in Ireland, in common with
those across most of the Western world, have shared a history of linguistic
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 47 10/04/2012 11:00

48 Irish Sign Language
suppression, ‘normalisation’ and oppression by (often well-meaning) hearing
people, there is a long way to go before ISL usage is as widespread and
uent among hearing people as it might be. A key example is in schools for
the deaf.
3.7 The social status of ISL users
In section 3.4 we discussed the role of education in the development of ISL
and described how changing attitudes to signing and oralism led to the sup-
pression of ISL within educational environments. Signing was completely
banned for children who were considered to be ‘oral successes’; teachers were
discouraged from signing to students; and children were segregated from
each other on the basis of their ability to speak (Grehan 2008). Grehan notes
that in St Mary’s School in Dublin, the ‘deaf and dumb’ girls had a dierent
uniform and a dierent haircut from the ‘oral successes’, which served to
emphasise their dierence. In addition, parents were advised to avoid signing
to their children since this was considered to encourage ‘laziness’ with respect
to learning speech (Leeson 2007).
These polices had an impact on both the educational prospects of ISL
signers and their social status. A student successful in the use of oral language
was taught the national curriculum and had access to state exams. Students in
signing groups left school without any formal qualications. In either case, in
1992 the average deaf child left school with the reading age of an 8½–9-year-
old child (Conrad 1979; James et al. 1992). Further, the consequences of
this on the lives of Deaf adults who survived the system impacts on all areas
of life, as illustrated starkly in work undertaken by Pauline Conroy for the
Irish Deaf Society and the Combat Poverty Agency in 2006 (Conroy 2006).
Conroy reports that of the 354 Deaf people who replied to her survey, 330
had attended a school for the deaf or a unit for deaf children. Despite staying
at school until they were 18 years or older, one in four adults left school with
no exam qualications and literacy was identied as a signicant issue: 38 per
cent said that they were unable to read and write eectively and more than 50
per cent said that they experienced problems in lling out a form or writing
a letter.
Conroy reports a signicant link between low levels of educational attain-
ment and consequent economic success. Focusing specically on education,
Conroy notes that the educational experience of adults
reveal a series of grave aws in Deaf education. The rst deciency is
in communication. Deaf children who were able to communicate with
each other, reported being unable to communicate clearly with their
teachers who did not use Irish Sign Language. (45)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 48 10/04/2012 11:00

The Historical and Social Context 49
Other aws with the educational system include:
1. The fact that many deaf children leave school with no formal qualica-
tions (Junior Certicate, Leaving Certicate) or any other formal proof of
their educational attainment.
2. The lack of transfer to continuing education at third or vocational level.
3. The high drop-out rate of Deaf students who do continue to third level.
4. The fact that these facts perpetuate the lack of opportunity for the natural
evolution of Deaf role models and critical analysis by Deaf people of the
educational system.
Conroy notes that the absence of educational qualications places Deaf
people at a serious disadvantage in later life, with Deaf adults often obliged
to accept entry-level jobs where they remain for long periods.
For those who do attend third level, many report:
being isolated from student life and many found no supports or rea-
sonable accommodations or adjustments to enable them to compete
on an equal footing with other students. Those who fared best were
the Universities. Those who encountered the most obstacles were
at Regional Technical Colleges, or Institutes of Technology. In the
absence of a ‘critical mass’ of Deaf students, they were out on their
own. (Conroy 2006: 45)
Perhaps the most signicant aspect of the Conroy report is the fact
that clear links are drawn between educational disadvantage and negative
employment outcomes for Deaf people in Ireland. While employment rates
for Deaf people are only marginally below those of hearing people – 64 per
cent as the national average and 60 per cent for Deaf people – unemploy-
ment is much more signicant for Deaf people: Conroy notes that, at 12 per
cent unemployment, Deaf respondents experienced four times the national
average rate of 3 per cent in 2006.
A consequence is that Deaf adults are concentrated in lower-level clerical
and manual posts with low levels of pay. Thus Conroy suggests that many
Deaf people can be considered to be ‘working poor’. Further, Deaf people
do not readily move jobs, do not seek or receive promotion, and experience
vertical and horizontal blockages to movement in the jobs market. She wor-
ryingly notes that work is eectively ‘a place of low pay, poor prospects and
considerable isolation’ (47). She sums up the situation by suggesting that:
‘Educational disadvantage and associated low paid, low status jobs should be
identied as strong factors explaining poverty in the Deaf community’ (46).
So, we can say that the stigmatisation of ISL for deaf children has impacted
on both educational and employment outcomes for Irish Deaf people.
Today, the tendency to educate deaf children in special schools has been
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 49 10/04/2012 11:00

50 Irish Sign Language
replaced with a trend towards mainstreaming children in their local schools.
Indeed, since 1997, there has been a 52 per cent decrease in the number of
children attending schools for the deaf. Mathews (2007) notes that while this
decrease in numbers coincides with the introduction of the 1998 Education
Act, which provided parents with the legal right to mainstream their child, it
is possible that this trend had begun before that and was simply accelerated
by the passing of this act.
Mainstreaming is not unproblematic: aside from the issue of how a teacher
with no specialist training can deliver adequate access to the curriculum for a
deaf child in a mainstream setting, other key concerns include social isolation
for the deaf child and, particularly, the lack of access to Deaf role models and
the lack of development of a positive sense of Deaf identity. Some of this is
addressed by an Irish Deaf man who was educated in a mainstream setting:
I never got a chance to socialize with other people, no opportunity or
reason why really. There is a very serious lack of support and apprecia-
tion of what the deaf student has to go through. If they can integrate
well educationally, everything is considered hunky dory. But in reality
that’s not the case at all. In my secondary school, there were 1,000 stu-
dents and I was the only deaf student – very isolated and always on the
outskirts of the group. (Gillen 2004: 9)
3.8 Variation within ISL
3.8.1 Gender and age variation in ISL
The impact of educational policy on the development of ISL is clearly
reected in gender variation. Given that the children who attended St
Joseph’s School for Deaf Boys and St Mary’s School for Deaf Girls were on
the whole separated from each other, it is not surprising that their language
shows marked dierences. This is most striking with older signers. LeMaster
(1990) studied dierences in women’s and men’s signing, focusing specically
on women who had left school around 1946 and men who had left school
around 1957. This period marks the cusp of the introduction of oralism in
the Catholic schools for the deaf. All of LeMaster’s informants were active
members of the Dublin Deaf community, and had had continued access to
gender-varied signs that they had used when at school through social interac-
tion with their peers, even though sign language played a diminishing role in
education.
LeMaster analysed 106 dierent male and female signs and found that 63
per cent of the signs were related to each other in some way, with the remain-
der unrelated. For example, related signs may have the same hand shape but
they a dierent movement or location. She argues that given that such a high
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 50 10/04/2012 11:00

The Historical and Social Context 51
percentage of the vocabulary she analysed was in fact related, one would
expect some degree of mutual intelligibility between male and female signers
using these related signs. This, however, was not the case with both men and
women reporting that they had actively to learn the vocabulary used by the
opposite sex.11
LeMaster (2002) evaluated semantic lists for gender variation and demon-
strated the occurrence of variation across all lexical categories analysed (for
example, GIRL (noun), WORK (verb) and YELLOW (adjective)). However,
LeMaster’s informants also reported that female signs were no longer in use
as women adopted the male variety as the standard form for daily interac-
tion, suggesting that male signs were more accessible to both male and female
signers than were female signs (ibid.).
What we should note is that the women and men about whom Barbara
LeMaster wrote are now very elderly, and given changes in educational
policy (that is, the impact of oralism as well as greater interaction between
pupils in both schools) and societally, greater interaction between the sexes,
there is no longer as clear cut a set of lexical variation in existence in ISL as
with LeMaster’s generation of signers. However, that does not mean that
younger generations of ISL signers do not demonstrate variation in their
language.
For example, Leeson and Grehan (2004) report that while the widespread
lexical dierences described by LeMaster have a corollary in generation, and
thus are not generally used by younger signers, contemporary signers have
another lexicon of gendered signs which originated in the segregated schools
for the deaf in Cabra. That is, gendered signing continues to be found in
the Irish Deaf community but more reduced than in previous generations.
Despite being ‘school signs’, many continue to be used today by Deaf women
ranging in age from their mid twenties to their late fties. Cormac Leonard
(2005) found that young signers of ISL (aged 18–30 in 2004) have also created
and use gendered lexical items, and while some of these gendered variants
are the same as those used by older cohorts, new gendered vocabulary items
have also been established, and crucially, these tend not to be used in formal
settings.
3.8.2 Geographical variation
Educational policy has always impacted on language outcomes in ISL: gen-
dered signing emerged due to segregated schools for boys and girls (LeMaster
1990; LeMaster 1999–2000; LeMaster and O’Dwyer 1991) and continues
to impact on today’s cohort of signers (Leeson and Grehan 2004; Leonard
2005). Further, the segregation of students according to cohort and oral
success or ‘failure’ led to cohort-specic variants (Leeson et al. 2006). As
signed language users are increasingly dispersed nationally and educated in
the mainstream, the potential for regional variation increases (ibid.). Indeed,
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 51 10/04/2012 11:00

52 Irish Sign Language
we are seeing some of this already, with respondents in the Mid-West region
reporting that the dominant variant of ISL (that is, the variant used in
Dublin) is not understood by some deaf people in the Mid-West, particularly
those who have been educated locally (Conama 2008). That is, with the estab-
lishment of the Mid-West School for Hearing Impaired Children in 1979, for
the rst time, in the 1980s a signicant cohort of deaf people from across the
Mid-West region were educated locally and did not come into contact with
the variants used in the Dublin schools. This seems to have given rise, over
the past thirty years, to a growing local variant that deserves further atten-
tion. We can add that with the advent of moves toward mainstreaming for a
majority of deaf and hard of hearing children, with small clusters of children
attending ‘partially hearing units’ across the country, the potential for desta-
bilisation of ISL is signicant, leading to additional, educational policy-led
fragmentation of ISL and increased variation, not just in terms of region but
in terms of a cohort by cohort shift. This will present signicant challenges
for the Deaf community moving forward, and also will present signicant
challenges in the provision of language-driven services, most notably signed
language interpreting services.
Finally, it is worth noting that in Northern Ireland, Irish Sign Language
may vary quite signicantly from usage in the Republic. As yet, no empiri-
cal studies have been conducted to compare and contrast the use of ISL
north and south of the border, but this is something that deserves research
attention.
3.9 Children’s acquisition of ISL
Only 5–10 per cent of deaf children are born to Deaf parents, and these chil-
dren generally acquire ISL as their rst language. That is, deaf children with
Deaf parents, acquire signed language in a natural way, following the same
general milestones that hold for hearing children acquiring a spoken lan-
guage. For the other 90–95 per cent of deaf children in Ireland, the acquisi-
tion of a signed language does not follow a normative path. For the majority
of deaf children then, the acquisition of a signed language is bootstrapped on
‘home sign’ use – a highly idiosyncratic and systematised use of gesture devel-
oped in individual hearing families to bridge the language gap – with fully
grammatical signed language use developing only when a deaf child comes in
contact with other deaf children and adults, as described in Goldin-Meadow
(2003). Either way, there are milestones that hold for the acquisition of sign
language for deaf children, and while very little has been examined in terms
of ISL acquisition paths to date (see the unpublished work of Deirdre Byrne-
Dunne (2005) as an exception to this), it is clear that this is a gap that needs to
be closed if we are to better understand how ISL develops for children from
Deaf families and for the majority who come from hearing families.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 52 10/04/2012 11:00

The Historical and Social Context 53
From international studies, we know that deaf children from Deaf fami-
lies who acquire a signed language as their rst language do so in a similar
pattern to hearing children acquiring their spoken-language mother tongue.
This includes the development of both vocal and manual babbling, with vocal
babbling decreasing after the rst few months in deaf babies (in contrast with
hearing infants, where babbling increases over time) (Woll 1998). Woll goes
on to note that this dierence may lead to changes in interaction patterns
between a deaf baby and its hearing parents, which may have long-term
implications for social and cognitive development in addition to language
development. Woll notes that gesture plays a signicant role in early social
interaction between children (deaf and hearing) and adults, and she points
out that a well-dened pattern of gesture development has also been identi-
ed. She suggests that ‘Gestures develop from early expressions of deixis
(pointing or otherwise indicating objects or people) to referential gestures
(labelling or naming of objects and actions)’ (59). While hearing and deaf
children make use of two gesture combinations, only children exposed to
signed languages seem to develop combinations of referential gestures like
DOLLY BIG (Volterra 1983).
The ‘critical period’ hypothesis suggests that late acquisition of language
has ramications for cognitive and social development. Similar research on a
number of signed languages suggests that where deaf children are not exposed
to a language by 5 years old, they do not simply ‘catch up’ when they are later
exposed to either a signed or spoken language (Mayberry and Eichen 1991).
Given this, those deaf children born into Deaf families have a linguistic and
cultural advantage insofar as they have access to a natural language acquisi-
tion pathway which parallels the pathway to language acquisition for hearing
children born into hearing families. Indeed, Gascon-Ramos (2008) suggests
that Deaf parents have a closer and more accurate view of what being deaf
means in terms of understanding of capacity for learning and language use,
and also in terms of having to cope with what are frequently negative rep-
resentations of Deaf people in hearing society. For deaf children born into
hearing families, the situation is more complex: for most hearing families,
their deaf child is the rst deaf person they have ever encountered, and soci-
etal views around deafness and language tend to support a pathologised view
of deafness, with medical interventions, and a focus on speech development
typically prioritised. This can contribute to negative psychological outcomes
for deaf children: for example, research suggests that while Deaf people grow
up to accept and appreciate themselves, they acknowledge painful and nega-
tive experiences at school and at home which have contributed to negative
feelings about themselves (Corker 1996; Gascon-Ramos 2008). Gascon-
Ramos (2008) suggests that:
The lack of knowledge about the nature of deaf children makes it dif-
cult for hearing parents to look beyond their own life experiences to
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 53 10/04/2012 11:00

54 Irish Sign Language
understand the deaf child’s needs. The acknowledgement of a world
where language and life is visually experienced is not part of their lives.
Deaf children, in the early stages of their development, have no need
to produce oral expression, as it is not a part of their living experience.
They are in need of a language to model and scaold their experience
(Garton 1994) and to grasp their reality in visual terms, so that commu-
nication (i.e. language) becomes part of a social visual experience. (69)
She continues to suggest that the well-being of deaf children is in great part
determined by the provision of adequate cultural and social nurturing that
is aligned with the deaf child’s nature and life experience. She suggests that
this requires hearing parents’ participation in the Deaf community in order
to facilitate their understanding of their deaf child’s experience from a Deaf
perspective.
Many deaf children born to hearing families, for many reasons, do not
have access to a signed language during stages when language is normally
acquired. Such deaf children often cannot access the spoken language of
their environment and have no recourse to natural signed language models.
In the absence of accessible language, deaf children build on the natural use
of gesture (which is a feature of all human communication) and do something
rather special with it: they generate structures that are more language-like
than those generated by the hearing people in their environment. Adam
Kendon, a key researcher in the area of gesture and language (spoken and
signed), notes that this is a normal response; when communication is blocked
from the oral modality, the manual modality assumes the functional burdens
of speech (Kendon 1980). Goldin-Meadow and Morford (1994) report on
the resilience of communication for deaf children who typically cannot
process the oral language surrounding them and have not yet been exposed
to a conventional signed language (like American Sign Language, or in our
case, Irish Sign Language). Despite their language situation, such children
‘have been observed to spontaneously exploit the manual modality for com-
munication and to invent their own gestural systems’ (249). Citing a range of
international empirical literature, Goldin-Meadow and Morford note that
these gestural systems are organised in language-like ways and are typically
more complex structurally than gestures produced by the children’s hearing
parents. Research also suggests that such created gestural communications
systems are structured similarly to the communication systems of children
acquiring language in traditional linguistic environments. These systems, as
used by deaf children, have been found to have structure at the level of the
sentence (that is, there are patterns identiable across gestures in a string),
and there is some evidence that gestures also have internal structure (Goldin-
Meadow and Mylander 1994). Clearly, there is a need for closer examination
of the pathway to language for Irish deaf children and the role that gesture
plays in bootstrapping communicative development.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 54 10/04/2012 11:00

The Historical and Social Context 55
For Irish hearing families who do ‘discover’ ISL, and seek to provide
access to the language for their deaf children, there are some pathways in
place. The Department of Education and Science established the ISL Home
Tuition Scheme in the mid 1990s, which oers a very valuable resource to
deaf and hearing children and their families. Given that some 90 per cent
of deaf children are born to hearing parents, it is recognised that the need
to facilitate communication and language development is vitally impor-
tant for these children. The Department funds this programme to facili-
tate learning of ISL in a family setting for children who use ISL and their
families. A knowledge of ISL subsequently allows for a greater degree of
communication between family and children, and as we have seen earlier,
communication is fundamental to children’s social, emotional and language
development.
In Ireland, an average of 100 hours of tuition a year per family is approved
and funded by the Department of Education and Science. In 2004, some sixty
families are recorded of having availed of this service (Mathews 2007) rising
by 2007 to an estimated one hundred families, but many parents report not
knowing that this service exists (Leeson 2007). An Advisory Committee on
Deaf Education set up at the turn of the twenty-rst century heard examples
of the problems met by parents of deaf children due to lack of information
and nancial supports (ibid.). Parents also highlighted the problematic
nature of attempting to support ISL acquisition in a context where not all
visiting teachers or teachers of the deaf can sign, since there is no requirement
for signed language competency for positions as teachers of the deaf. A later
report commissioned by the National Council for Special Education recom-
mended an aggressive programme of providing deaf children and their fami-
lies with instruction in Irish Sign Language (Marschark and Spencer 2009),
though this has yet to be implemented.
Traditionally, access to ISL occurred on arrival at a school for the deaf
and as a result, the schools are seen as the ‘cradle’ of ISL and Deaf culture
by many. However, in the current context, educational policy has moved
away from the provision of special education per se towards a policy of
mainstreaming or ‘full inclusion services’ (Mathews 2007). This has led to
a decline in student numbers that is close to 50 per cent at the schools for
the deaf, as parents choose to educate their children at regional units for
the deaf and in local mainstream educational settings. Educational policy is
important here, as one of the unintended outcomes of this is a destabilisa-
tion of a central context for language transmission. Given that teachers of
the deaf and those non-specialist teachers working with deaf children are not
required to have any uency in Irish Sign Language, there are no guarantees
that a deaf child in a mainstream setting will naturally acquire competence
in ISL. Given the ever decreasing number of deaf children attending special
schools for the deaf, and the fact that so few deaf children are born to Deaf
parents, the core of ISL-uent members of the Deaf community looks likely
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 55 10/04/2012 11:00

56 Irish Sign Language
to decrease over the coming decades. This may well leave many deaf people
without uency in any language, and thus limited access to Deaf culture and
the Deaf community. It also potentially positions ISL as an endangered or
threatened language (Johnston 2006).
3.10 The ocial status of ISL
ISL is not currently an ocial language in the Republic, although it is recog-
nised formally in Northern Ireland, along with British Sign Language. This
lack of recognition together with the fact that Deaf people are generally seen
as disabled rather than as members of a linguistic community means that Deaf
people are a disadvantaged minority (Krausneker 2001; Timmermans 2005).
However, the international community clearly recognises signed languages
as ‘real’ natural languages worthy of protection: the European Parliament
has passed two resolutions on signed languages (European Parliament 1988,
1998),12 while in 2003 the Council of Europe’s parliamentary assembly
passed a resolution calling for the protection of signed languages (Leeson
2004; Timmermans 2005). UN documents also recognise the value of signed
languages: both UNESCO’s Salamanca Statement (UNESCO 1994) and
the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with a Disability (United
Nations 2006) call for the use of signed languages in education. The most
recent addition to the range of international documents recognising (or
calling for the recognition of) signed languages is the Brussels Declaration.
In November 2010, the European Union of the Deaf (EUD) launched the
Brussels Declaration on Sign Languages in the European Union on behalf
of the national associations of Deaf people across the EU, and signed by
the Presidents of the World Federation of the Deaf (WFD), the European
Forum of Sign Language Interpreters (EFSLI), the World Association of
Sign Language Interpreters (WASLI) and Hungarian (Deaf) MEP, Dr Ádám
Kósa. In parallel, EUD published a volume documenting the current legal
status (or lack thereof) of signed languages in all European Union countries
(Wheatley and Pabsch 2010).
Despite this gloomy history, many teachers today are more open to ISL
learning and use, and in recent years there has been an increase in the number
of Deaf teachers working in the schools for the deaf. The Department of
Education and Science also provides support to parents who wish to avail
of home sign tuition (Leeson 2007). However, without a fundamental shift
in (1) state policy regarding requirements for teachers of the deaf, (2) entry
requirements for teacher education at primary level and (3) inclusion of ISL
on the curriculum and not just in special schools, the situation is unlikely to
improve.
Outside of education, over the past twenty years, ISL has come to be used
in the media, for example the television programmes News for the Deaf,
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 56 10/04/2012 11:00

The Historical and Social Context 57
Hands On and its precursor, Sign of the Times, at conferences and in terti-
ary education. These developments were made possible by the availability
of professional interpreters, with the rst cohort graduating in 1994. In
criminal legal contexts, the requirement for sign language interpretation has
long been established as a right but in medical contexts the critical barrier to
informed consent arising from use of another language still does not seem to
be adequately recognised.13
3.11 Summary
In this chapter we have considered the historical development of ISL and
its current social context. We have seen how important a role has been
played by the schools for the deaf. We have seen that BSL was present in the
Protestant schools for the deaf until the twentieth century, and that modern
ISL displays a complex pattern of sign language contacts: combining an LSF
substrate with input from the pre-existing ‘Old ISL’, which included a BSL
substrate. We also saw that educational policy impacted signicantly on the
form that ISL took, for example with regard to the use of ISL-based variants
in the Catholic schools and BSL-based variants in the Protestant Claremont
Institute, and with gender-segregated schools leading to gendered variants of
ISL. We have seen too that the implementation of oral education at dierent
times has inuenced variants. More recently, the establishment of schools in
other parts of the country is leading to the evolution of regional variants, for
example the Mid-West School for Hearing Impaired Children being associ-
ated with an evolving Mid-Western dialect of ISL.
We considered the impact of ISL on Auslan and South African Sign
Language. ISL has also had a strong presence in parts of the UK, including
Scotland, parts of England and in Northern Ireland. We also noted that while
the inuence of BSL on modern ISL is often discussed, the historical inu-
ence of BSL on ISL is frequently overlooked.
We have tried to show something of the contemporary Irish Deaf com-
munity and outlined the range of social issues that impact on language use.
Primary amongst these is educational policy, which aects how the majority of
deaf children come into contact with ISL, how they acquire the language, and
the extent to which ISL is used in academic domains. We outlined the impact
that the suppression of ISL in previous generations has had on ISL usage
today, including the development of gendered variants and the delayed devel-
opment of an academic register of ISL. We have also talked about the likely
impact of mainstreaming on ISL in the coming decades. In considering the
path to language acquisition for deaf children, we discussed ‘home sign’, and
we outlined how home sign can support access to ISL. We compared and con-
trasted the developmental pathways for deaf children from Deaf families with
that of deaf children from hearing families. We then turned to look at issues
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 57 10/04/2012 11:00

58 Irish Sign Language
of language recognition and we saw that while the British government has
recognised ISL in Northern Ireland, the Irish government has not yet formally
recognised ISL within the framework of any language-related legislation.
Notes
1. Matthews (1996b) lists fourteen educational services, but this includes
the various locations that Orpen operated at: Smitheld Penitentiary in
1816, Brunswick Street in 1817 and then Claremont in Glasnevin in 1819.
He also lists St Joseph’s School, Prospect Avenue, Glasnevin, separately
from St Joseph’s School for Deaf Boys, Cabra, as well as St Mary’s
School for Deaf Girls, Cabra, while McDonnell (1979) combines these
under the heading of the Catholic Institution for the Deaf.
2. See Pollard (2006) for a detailed account of the work of Dr Charles
Orpen and the history of the Claremont Institute.
3. See for example McDonnell and Saunders (1993), Griey (1994), for
discussion of the Irish situation and Knoors (1999) for the Netherlands.
4. It is not clear from Griey’s writings exactly when strict segregation
was implemented in St Mary’s School for Deaf Girls, but we know from
Knoors that Van Uden implemented a strict segregation policy in the
1960s, so Sr Nicholas Griey seems to have been a forerunner in imple-
menting this approach.
5. As we have seen, the link to LSF did originally come about as a result of
the establishment of the rst Catholic school in Ireland.
6. The school currently has a website at <http://www.dominicangrimley.
org> (accessed 25 November 2011), which states its continuing commit-
ment to oralism.
7. See SLED (Sign Language Education and Development) website,
<http://www.sled.org.za> (accessed 25 November 2011).
8. Maginn was born in Mallow, Co. Cork, in 1861 to a Protestant family.
He became deafened post-lingually at age 5 years. He was educated in
London, and later attended Gallaudet College (now University) where
he was inspired to improve the situation of Deaf people in the UK. In
his later years, Maginn focused his eorts in Northern Ireland, where
he died in 1918. It is worth noting that Maginn was multi-lingual. He
was a uent writer of English (as evidenced by his school and College
reputation); while in the USA, he would have used ASL to engage with
the Gallaudet environment, and we know that he communicated in BSL
with his contemporaries in the UK. While he did not graduate from
Gallaudet College, Maginn was highly regarded, and was later conferred
with an honorary degree by the College (see <http://www.bris.ac.uk/
Depts/DeafStudiesTeaching/dhcwww/chapter3.htm#5> (accessed 25
November 2011)).
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 58 10/04/2012 11:00

The Historical and Social Context 59
9. See Matthews (1996) and Leeson and Sheikh (2010) for further discus-
sion regarding the Irish Deaf Community; Lane et al. (1996) for discus-
sion of the American Deaf Community; and Ladd (2003) for discussion
of Deafhood and the British Deaf Community.
10. In the eld of Deaf Studies, the term ‘deaf’ (with a lower case ‘d’) is used
to refer to those with a hearing impairment and those who are deaf-
ened, while ‘Deaf’ (upper case ‘D’) refers to those who see themselves as
members of a cultural community. Of course, there are ‘fuzzy categories’,
which we will return to later, where it can be dicult to assign member-
ship to one of these categories, for example deaf children with hearing
parents, who have not yet encountered Deaf culture; and hearing chil-
dren of Deaf parents who acquire a signed language as a rst language.
11. Interestingly Stan Foran (1979), writing as a leading member of the Deaf
community at the time, suggests that a process of standardising ISL
occurred in order to make it easier for hearing learners of ISL, that is,
they would only have to learn one sign variant.
12. Indeed this resolution was raised by an Irish MEP, Eileen LeMass.
13. See RTÉ Hands On reports from 2008. The archived data is only avail-
able to Irish viewers but content is available at <http://www.rte.ie/tv/
handson/archive.html>. Particularly, see the programme about access
to health care aired on 24 February 2008, available at <http://www.rte.
ie/tv/handson/thisweek24022008.html>. A more recent addition is a
Hands On segment on access to maternity care on 27 November 2011 at
<http://www.rte.ie/tv/handson/thisweek27112011.html> (all accessed 30
December 2011).
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 59 10/04/2012 11:00

4 The Phonetics and Phonology of ISL
4.1 Introduction
This chapter introduces readers to the rst aspect of linguistic analysis
proper: the phonetics and phonology of ISL. We begin by dening phonet-
ics and phonology, outlining the importance of being able to identify what
data are considered signicant in linguistic terms. We show how the notion
of minimal pairs helps us to identify the phonological units of ISL that make
up signs. We discuss manual, non-manual and multi-channel signs and
introduce Stokoe’s (1960) original parameters for analysis of manual signs:
handshape, movement and location. We look at the handshapes that are used
in ISL and discuss the issue of allophonic variation. We then identify other
parameters of the signs: movement and orientation of the hands and non-
manual features.
4.2 Phonetics
Phonetics is typically taken to be the study of speech sounds. Phoneticians
are concerned with what people do when they speak, and aim to describe
the sounds that occur in human spoken languages. They ask questions
about how the articulatory parameters of speech are aected by speech; for
example, how does the vocal tract produce the sounds of spoken languages?
Phoneticians are also concerned with creating a phonetic inventory for each
language, which contains the list of sounds that occur in a given language.
In turn, each sound is associated with a symbol that represents the sound,
and these symbols together make up the International Phonetic Alphabet
(IPA). The symbols listed in the IPA are based on the Roman alphabet and
allow for phoneticians to write down the sounds of any spoken language that
occurs using the IPA. Phonetics, then, is concerned with the transcription of
the sounds of a spoken language while phonology is the description of the
systems and patterns of sounds that occur in a language. As Ladefoged (1993:
25) notes, phonetics ‘involves studying a language to determine its distinctive
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 60 10/04/2012 11:00

The Phonetics and Phonology of ISL 61
sounds and to establish a set of rules that describe the set of changes that take
place in these sounds when they occur in diering relationships with other
sounds’. Ladefoged describes a phonological unit, a phoneme, as occurring
when two sounds can be used to dierentiate between two dierent semantic
units, for example in the English words ‘white’ versus ‘right’ or ‘cat’ versus
‘bat’ (ibid.).
It is important to note that as a phonological unit a phoneme is not a single
sound, but a group of sounds. Phonemes are abstract units that function in
the grammatical system of a language and may form the basis for writing
down languages systematically and unambiguously (ibid.). Because English
pronunciation has changed so much over time, but spelling has remained the
same, we see dierences arising between phonemic transcriptions of English
and the established writing system. In contrast, for Swahili, the transcription
system and the orthography are very similar (ibid.). If we take the English
examples ‘pat’ and ‘sat’, we can see that these words appear to dier only
in terms of their initial consonants. What we can say is that this dierence,
known as contrastiveness or opposition, is sucient to distinguish these
words from each other. Because of this, we can say that the [p] and [s] sounds
represent dierent phonemes in English. Pairs of words that are identical
except for such a sound are known as a minimal pair, and minimal pairs are
the most frequent demonstration that two sounds are separate phonemes. If
no minimal pair can be found to demonstrate that two sounds are distinct, it
may be that they are variants of the same phoneme.
Such variant sounds, though distinguishable by phonetic analysis, may
be perceived by speakers of the language as essentially the same sound and
are known as allophones. These allophonic variations are especially likely to
happen if the sounds occur in dierent environments. An example of allo-
phonic variation in English exists with the /l/ phoneme. In most accents the
‘dark’ l sound [ƚ] that comes at the end of the word wool is quite dierent from
the ‘light l’ sound [l] at the beginning of the word leaf.
4.3 The phonetics of ISL
With this description of traditional phonetics and phonology in mind, we
turn to the application of these principles to signed languages generally,
and to Irish Sign Language in particular. We have seen that phonetics is the
study of the sounds that occur in a given language and how they are articu-
lated while phonology describes both how those sounds form linguistically
signicant units and how these units combine to create words in a given
language. Since the word phonology derives from the Classical Greek word
φωνή, phōnē, ‘sound, voice’, it might be no surprise to learn that William
Stokoe, one of the founders of modern sign linguistics, proposed using the
term cherology, from Greek χείρ, cheir, ‘hand’, to discuss the hand patterns
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 61 10/04/2012 11:00

62 Irish Sign Language
that arise in signed languages (Stokoe 1960). However, this term did not enter
into widespread use and instead the same terms, phonetics and phonology,
are used in identifying the building blocks of signed languages and the pat-
terns that they follow (Johnston and Schembri 2007). So just as phonetics is
concerned with the segmentation of the sound stream produced by speak-
ers, in signed languages it is concerned with the segmentation of the uid
movement of the signer’s hands, body and facial movements. Forms such as
handshapes are abstracted from the gestural stream by phonetic analysis, as
their linguistic function is identied. Thus far, there is no agreement on the
phonetic alphabet inventory for ISL: Ó Baoill and Matthews (2000) identied
sixty-six handshapes while Matthews (2005) identied those listed in Figure
4.1. As we shall see, other linguistic forms include bodily orientation, mouth-
ing and eyegaze.
The description of the phonology of a signed language involves exploring
the way that phonological units are formed by the combination of handshapes
and other phonetic features, and trying to discover the rules that govern how
these units are combined to form higher-level elements like words.
An important issue to consider is the fact that while ISL makes use of the
one-handed alphabet, as discussed in Chapter 2, signs can be either one-
handed or two-handed. For example, the signs for DEAF and HEARING
are both one-handed signs, as are the signs for KNOW, LIKE and WALK.
However, signs for MOTHER, FATHER, OLD, YOUNG, LOVE, JUMP
and FISH are two-handed. We should also note that in certain conditions,
two-handed signs can become one-handed and one-handed signs can become
two-handed. For example, in informal situations, if a signer is nursing a pint
of Guinness or holding a cup of tea or a baby, the non-dominant hand is
omitted (though in some conditions, another point of contact may be sub-
stituted, for example the non-dominant arm or the leg of a signer). Another
possibility is that over time, what was a two-handed sign has become a one-
handed sign. SISTER is an example. It is articulated with the dominant hand
making contact with the ipsilateral shoulder. For older signers (or for empha-
sis, as we shall see later), this sign may be articulated as a two-handed sign.
When we talk about two-handed signs, sign linguists use terms like ‘domi-
nant/non-dominant’ or ‘strong/weak’ or ‘active/passive’ to describe the rela-
tionship between the hands, with the dominant/strong/active hand being the
hand that the signer uses to ngerspell. However, as Nilsson (2010) points
out, the non-dominant hand is anything but passive. It has a range of func-
tions, which we discuss later, that have particular importance for the struc-
ture of discourse in ISL.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 62 10/04/2012 11:00

The Phonetics and Phonology of ISL 63
Figure 4.1 ISL handshapes
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 63 10/04/2012 11:00

64 Irish Sign Language
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 64 10/04/2012 11:00

The Phonetics and Phonology of ISL 65
Figure 4.1 (cont.)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 65 10/04/2012 11:00

66 Irish Sign Language
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 66 10/04/2012 11:00

The Phonetics and Phonology of ISL 67
Figure 4.1 (cont.)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 67 10/04/2012 11:00

68 Irish Sign Language
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 68 10/04/2012 11:00

The Phonetics and Phonology of ISL 69
Figure 4.1 (cont.)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 69 10/04/2012 11:00

70 Irish Sign Language
4.4 The phonology of ISL
As we have noted, phonology describes formal units that allow contrasts in
meaning. While two handshapes may show detectable dierences, these may
not be signicant for meaning in a given sign. In ISL, for example, some
spreading of ngers can occur in handshapes in certain signs, but this pho-
netic dierence may not cause signers to perceive the sign as meaning some-
thing dierent. The ISL sign for MOTHER, for example, is articulated with
two P-handshapes, which entails the ngers being closed. In Example 4.1,
the rst signer articulates MOTHER in this prototypical way. In contrast,
the second signer articulates MOTHER with the ngers spread, using what
would otherwise be described as a W-handshape. However, contextually,
these variant handshapes are not perceived as dierent signs. These two vari-
ants do not form a minimal pair; they are just phonetic variants of the sign
MOTHER, or an instance of allophonic variation.
Example 4.1
4.5 Manual signs
Handshape is a necessary, but not sucient parameter in the creation of
a sign: several other parameters are required to co-occur simultaneously.
Stokoe (1960) identied three parameters as essential to the formation of a
manual sign:
1. handshape or ‘designator’ (DEZ)
2. location or ‘tabulation’ (TAB)
3. movement or ‘signation’ (SIG).
Allophonic variation in the articulation of MOTHER Lianne (14) Personal Stories (Dublin)
Fergus M. (07) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 70 10/04/2012 11:00

The Phonetics and Phonology of ISL 71
To these Battison (1978) suggested adding a parameter of orientation (ORI):
the spatial relationship of the palm and ngers to the signer’s body. The
parameters that are basic to the make-up of any sign in any given natural
sign language can be said to be the phonological properties of a sign language
(Sutton-Spence and Woll 1999).
As we have seen, handshape refers to the conguration of the hand(s) in
the articulation of a sign. Handshape can be said to represent one of the
phonetic possibilities of a signed language and use of particular handshapes
is linguistically determined. For example, while the middle nger extended
is a handshape that occurs in some dialects of BSL, for signs like for IDLE,
UNEMPLOYED, HOLIDAY and MOCK (Brien 1992: 381), this hand-
shape does not occur in ISL.
In the following sections we look at handshape and the other manual
parameters, movement, location and orientation, in ISL. More recent
research suggests that we need to consider non-manual features (NMFs),
particularly mouthing and mouth gestures, as important parts of the phono-
logical structure of signs. As we shall see, NMFs have an important role to
play at morphological and syntactic levels. However, for simplicity we begin
with the four manual phonological parameters that are the basis for the for-
mation of a sign in ISL.
The identication of ‘minimal pairs’ allows us to identify phonemes in
a language. A minimal pair can be said to arise when only one parameter
is altered, but this alteration leads to a change in meaning. For example,
in ISL, where orientation, movement and location remain the same, and
only the handshape parameter varies, we can identify handshapes that are
phonemes.1 Examples include the ISL signs KNOW and UNDERSTAND,
where location, movement and orientation of the palm are the same for
both signs, and only the handshape parameter diers. KNOW takes an ISL-
L-handshape while UNDERSTAND takes a U-handshape, at the side of
the head. In many cases in ISL, minimal pairs diering only on the basis of
handshape tend to share the same semantic class, as can be seen in Examples
4.2–4.6.
Example 4.2
AUNT UNCLE COUSIN
Example 4.3
MOTHER FATHER
Example 4.4
SON DAUGHTER
Example 4.5
KNOW UNDERSTAND THINK
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 71 10/04/2012 11:00

72 Irish Sign Language
Example 4.6
HOLY BLESS BLESS (as done by the Pope)
Examples 4.2–4.6 clearly show that higher-level semantic categories are
shared by individual signs. In Examples 4.2–4.4 all the lexical items are
kinship terms; in Example 4.5 they are related to cognitive processes; and in
Example 4.6 they are related to a central notion of blessedness. These more
abstract semantic classes share elements of the phonological form. In Chapter
6 we will discuss these semantic relations between words in more detail.
In the next sections we discuss the manual parameters of (1) handshape,
(2) location, (3) movement and (4) orientation. Handshape, as we have seen,
refers to the conguration of the hand or hands (for two-handed signs).
Location relates to the position of the hands relative to the signer’s body or
in signing space. Movement relates to the movement path that the hands and
arms follow in signing space. Movement can also include reference to the
internal movement of the ngers and/or thumbs. The orientation of the palm
is an important phonological factor that can lead to minimal pairs. An ISL
example of this would be MOTHER versus POOR (Example 4.7).
Example 4.7
4.5.1 Handshape
Earlier, we presented a characteristic inventory of handshapes in ISL (see
Figure 4.1). Internationally, many phonologists are adopting the HamNoSys
inventory in their work. We include elements of the inventory here too, as it
oers an articulatory phonetics approach to the description of manual signs,
and, with input arising from the analysis of an ever increasing number of
signed languages, it has the potential to form the basis of an International
Phonetics Alphabet for signed languages (Figure 4.2).
As Thorvaldsdottir (2010) notes, when we attempt to transcribe or code
phonetic features in a signed language with the aim of using the information
Minimal pairs arising from a difference in orientation: MOTHER and POOR
Kevin (17) Personal Stories (Dublin) Senan (01) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 72 10/04/2012 11:00

The Phonetics and Phonology of ISL 73
Basic forms
Basic symbols
(a)
(b)
are combined with diacritic signs for thumb position
are combined with diacritic signs for the width of opening
and bending
and bending (of concerned fingers).
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 73 10/04/2012 11:00

74 Irish Sign Language
(c)
(d)
(e)
identical finger base direction:
Finger specifications replace default finger(s)
or specify derivations or specify concerned fingers with connections.
Crossing fingers are notated with fingers digits Hidden thumbs are notated as follows:
(lower first) and the finger part where the upper
finger meets the lower one:
Inventory:
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 74 10/04/2012 11:00

The Phonetics and Phonology of ISL 75
for phonological analysis, we face the challenge of making the coding func-
tional for later phonological work. Ideally, we would know the phonology
of the language before we begin to code the phonetics of a given signed
language, but this rarely happens in practice. Crasborn (2001) and Van der
Kooij (2002) call this the database paradox. To overcome this problem, it
becomes necessary to rely on research from other signed languages alongside
our preliminary observations for ISL. Thorvaldsdottir (2010) notes that one
issue that arises is that international databases of handshape do not neces-
sarily capture the range of ISL-specic handshapes that arise. She gives the
examples in Figure 4.3.
(f)
(e)
Figure 4.2 The HamNoSys inventory: (a) handshapes, (b) thumb combinations,
(c) nger specications, (d) nger parts, (e) nger base orientation, (f) nger parts,
denotations
Furthermore eight steps in-between: Note that
is different from
: thumb
: index finger
: middle finger
: ring finger
: little finger
: between
: fingertip
: fingernail
: fingerpad
: middle joint
: base of finger
: side of finger
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 75 10/04/2012 11:00

76 Irish Sign Language
Another issue is that there are phonetic variants that arise in ISL, as illus-
trated in Example 4.8, which are further instances of allophonic variation as
described earlier.
Example 4.8
4.5.2 Location
Describing British Sign Language, Brennan et al. (1984) identify ve distinct
spatial locations: the head (including the neck), the trunk, the arms, the
hands and the area in front of the signer’s body. They subdivide each location
into specic tabs. For example, the head area is reported to have ten tabs,
each allocated due to the fact that certain signs dier only in terms of their
Figure 4.3 ISL-specic handshapes? (a) ISL handshape not found in HamNoSys,
(b) handshape not noted before in ISL (but used in signes like BOY)
(a) ISL handshape not found in HamNoSys (b) Handshape not noted before in ISL
(but used in signs like BOY)
(a) Citation form for BOY: (b) Variation of the sign BOY:
articulated with four selected fingers articulated with one selected finger
Noeleen (03) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 76 10/04/2012 11:00

The Phonetics and Phonology of ISL 77
position on or near the head (35). So in BSL, the eye, ear, nose, mouth and
forehead are considered to be separate tabs.
The same pattern is discernible in Irish Sign Language since many minimal
pairs can be identied on the basis of tab dierences. An example of an ISL
verb which has the side of the forehead as a tab is THINK, while the ISL verb
TELL begins at the mouth and has this as its tab. The verb GIVE uses the
space in front of the signer, neutral space, (c.) as its tab, although as we will
see, direction of movement is another inuencing factor. Currently work is
underway to identify the tab operations for ISL. In the absence of a compre-
hensive list, we can still identify minimal pairs in ISL on the basis of tab dif-
ference. For example, Matthews (1996a) gives the ISL examples of MY and
STUPID as minimal pairs, where the feature that changes, creating meaning
change, is location. MY has the signer’s chest as a tab, while STUPID has the
forehead as a tab.
We can also note that constraints exist with respect to the use of signing
locations in ISL. For example, no sign is normally articulated outside signing
space, or on the signer’s back, though poetic licence may allow for this rule
to be broken occasionally. When this happens, we can say that the proto-
typical phonological constraints have been breached. An example of this
in British Sign Language occurs in the poem ‘Morning’ by Dorothy Miles.
In one section, the poet signs ‘TWIN TREES’, a novel creation that shows
the reection of a tree in a pool. The poet breaches typical BSL phonologi-
cal rules because it is not usual for two-handed signs to touch at the elbows
(Sutton-Spence et al. 2005; Sutton-Spence and Woll 1999). Signers of ISL
also recognise when location constraints have been breached; signers can,
for example, breach location constraints for metaphoric eect. One example
of this is where the ISL sign BOIL is articulated on the signer’s body at
lower-torso level instead of in neutral signing space. The change of location
indicates a shift in meaning from the literal verbal meaning of ‘to boil’ to a
metaphoric rendition, meaning that ‘I was boiling with anger’, as discussed
later in Chapter 9.
4.5.3 Movement
Analysis of the movement parameter is considered the most dicult to
describe adequately (Brennan et al. 1984; Kyle and Woll 1985; Maguire 1991;
Stokoe 1978). Just as the number of handshapes permitted within a sign lan-
guage is subject to constraints, the range of movements allowed is also gov-
erned from within the language. Brennan et al. (1984) consider the argument
that ‘the type of movement may in part be conditioned by what is performing
the action’ (40). Indeed, more recent work suggests that there is an analogue
between movement in the real world and some kinds of movement that arise
in signed languages. For example, Slobin and Hoiting (1994) note that signed
languages use space to represent space, and motion to represent motion. For
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 77 10/04/2012 11:00

78 Irish Sign Language
now, we can consider the feature analysis of movement oered by Friedman
(1977) which includes four fundamental features:
· Interaction: whether one or both hands move and if they perform the same
movement or interact with each other.
· Contact: whether the hands make contact with the body, and if so, what
kind of contact do they make? (For example, continuous or punctual, etc.)
· Direction: of movement in space described in terms of three axes: horizon-
tal-width, horizontal-depth and vertical.
· Manner: relates to the type of movement, be that of the entire arm
(‘macro’) or of the joints of the hands and wrist (‘micro’).
If we take the following Irish Sign Language utterance, we could describe
the ISL verb ‘GIVE (a thick book)’ in terms of the movement parameter as
in Example 4.9.
Example 4.9
c.(2h)1GIVE2 (h/s 13⇒⇐)f.
‘I am giving you a (thick) book’
We can describe the movement as:
· Interaction: two hands move, performing the same movement, using the
same handshape.
· Contact: no body contact occurs. Movement takes place in neutral space
(c.).
· Direction: moves forward along the ‘horizontal-width’ axis. (c.→f.).
· Manner: macro. Both arms are involved in the movement.
The movement parameter also allows us to dierentiate direction of move-
ment in relation to person agreement, for example 1GIVE2 and 2GIVE1
dier only in relation to the direction of movement.2
4.5.4 Orientation
The nal manual parameter to consider is that of orientation (Ori).
Orientation, as we saw earlier, can be considered the relationship of the
hands to the signer’s body and to each other (Brennan et al. 1984; Kyle and
Woll 1985). The inclusion of orientation as a fundamental parameter for
description was originally hotly debated. Friedman (1977) argued for the
inclusion of this parameter, though she proposed that orientation must be
dened for each individual handshape to allow us to determine the hand
direction in relation to the body, while Stokoe (1978) argued that it was
unnecessary.3 Brennan et al. (1984) include the orientation parameter in their
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 78 10/04/2012 11:00

The Phonetics and Phonology of ISL 79
analysis on the basis of two main inuencing factors: the fact that orientation
can be a sole distinguishing feature between two lexical signs, and the fact
that hitherto transcription systems that excluded the parameter of orienta-
tion have proven inadequate.
In Irish Sign Language, orientation can also be said to be a dening
factor in dierentiating between sets of minimal pairs (Matthews 1996a).
One example of this is the minimal pair LESSON and BLOOD, as seen in
Example 4.10.
Example 4.10
Brennan (1992) notes that there are other features that need to be taken
into consideration in addition to those outlined above. She lists hand
arrangement and point and place of contact as important when discussing
sign production. Our discussion has concentrated on manual parameters; in
section 4.7 we discuss an important non-manual parameter in ISL: mouthing.
Before that, we turn to the phonological constraints that we can identify as
operating on the production of signs.
4.6 Non-manual features
4.6.1 Beyond the hands
Sutton-Spence (2007) points out that while we often think of signed lan-
guages as being manual in nature, important linguistic information is also
produced through non-manual channels, including the mouth. Research
on sign languages has revealed the contribution to meaning of non-manual
markers such as facial expressions, head movements, bodily posture and
mouthing. Examples of the types of non-manual features used by ISL signers
are given in Table 4.1. We will see examples of the grammatical and discourse
roles played by some of these features later in this book, for example with
(a) LESSON (b) BLOOD
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 79 10/04/2012 11:00

80 Irish Sign Language
Table 4.1 Articulatory descriptors for non-manual features in Irish Sign
Language (following Nonhebel, Crasborn and van der Kooij’s description
of ECHO Project conventions (2004))
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 80 10/04/2012 11:00

The Phonetics and Phonology of ISL 81
respect to how topic-comment structures are marked, the ways in which the
clustering of certain non-manual features can mark the dierence between
statements and questions, the marking of WH-questions versus yes–no (or
polar) questions, the role played by NMFs in dierentiating between volition
and non-volition on the part of the signer, and in the marking of adverbials.
Identifying this lexical use represents a claim that the non-manual feature is
an obligatory part of the sign rather than an optional modier, belonging
more properly to the sentence level. However, in many cases such features
combine with manual features to form what have been called ‘multi-channel’
signs (Lawson 1983), to emphasise the interdependence of manual and
non-manual features in these signs. An example of this is the minimal pair
APPLE/PROSTITUTE. APPLE is articulated with an A-handshape, with
contact at the ipsilateral cheek, and the sign has a circular movement. The
mouthing that co-occurs with this sign is ‘apple’. PROSTITUTE is made up
of the same manual components, but for some typically older signers there is
no mouthing and instead, the signer’s tongue is extended into the hollow of
the ipsilateral cheek and is visible to the interlocutor. Younger signers tend
to mouth ‘prostitute’. We discuss the role of mouthings and mouth gestures
in the next section.
4.6.2 Mouthings and mouth gestures
In this section we discuss meaningful linguistic information conveyed by
signers’ mouth movements. Rainò (2001) suggests that there are two major
categories of mouthed elements in signed languages. The rst main category
is referred to as ‘mouthings’. Mouthings are derived from a spoken language,
and are evidence of the contact between English and Irish Sign Language, as
in the APPLE/PROSTITUTE example discussed above. We will also see that
mouthings were introduced into ISL as a consequence of the introduction of
oral educational practices. The second category of mouthed elements is that
of ‘mouth gestures’. Sutton-Spence (2007) points out that these are idiomatic
gestures of the mouth and cannot be traced back to a spoken language. We
will see that even signers who do not make use of mouthing, mostly elderly
male signers, do make use of mouth gestures. We will also see that there are
some mouth gestures that were originally gender specic but, in some cases,
have become more widely used across the Irish Deaf ISL-using population
(Leeson 2005; Leeson and Grehan 2004).
Boyes Braem (2001) has shown that mouthings may be used lexically,
grammatically, prosodically and for discourse and stylistic reasons in Swiss
German Sign Language. Sutton-Spence (2007) nds the same range of func-
tionality for mouthings in British Sign Language, while work in progress on
the form and function of mouthings in ISL suggests the same range of func-
tion holds true (Fitzgerald forthcoming). For BSL, Sutton-Spence (2007)
reports that in all cases, the simultaneity of the mouthing with the hands is an
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 81 10/04/2012 11:00

82 Irish Sign Language
essential feature, with just 1 per cent of the mouthings in her corpus having
no accompanying manual component. The majority of these mouthings were
for interjections such as ‘yes’, ‘no’, ‘well’, ‘of course’ and ‘oh’. However, as we
shall see below, in ISL, while mouthings co-occur with manually produced
lexical items, there are instances where no mouthed accompaniment arises,
and we shall see that this feature is sociolinguistically motivated.
Militzer (2009) has conducted a preliminary analysis of the gendered use
of mouthing in ISL and substantiated what was claimed for ISL, namely that
considerable dierences arose in terms of how men and women use mouth-
ing, and that age plays a signicant role in the occurrence of mouthing. Her
work substantiates earlier claims of dierences associated with the introduc-
tion of oral education in Ireland and how this impacts on use of mouthing
and mouth gestures by ISL users. Militzer suggests that for ISL, the signer’s
educational background (primary and secondary school education inuenced
by oralism or not) is decisive for their use of mouthing. This is evidenced in
the personal stories from the Signs of Ireland corpus, which demonstrates
that generational dierences have a major impact on the mouthing behaviour
of the signers. Militzer subdivided the Signs of Ireland corpus into three age
categories for her study: (1) 18–35 years, (2) 40–55 years and (3) 55+ years.
She found that Irish Deaf women aged 55 years and above use mouthing
much less frequently than younger female signers. She also suggests that
there is a correlation between use of mouthing and mouth gestures: usage of
mouth gestures is inversely related to use of mouthings. Given this, younger
female signers make much less use of mouth gestures than their older female
counterparts. Militzer suggests that this is a result of the educational experi-
ence of the Irish Deaf community: she suggests that the younger signers were
educated in the heyday of oralism and were subjected to spoken English more
than the older generation, which explains the dierences in mouth actions.
We would suggest an additional set of considerations: while oralism was
introduced and implemented with determination in St Mary’s School for
Deaf Girls from the 1940s, the availability of hearing aids and other systems
to support auditory input was quite limited. Today, due to the increased
availability of more powerful technologies (for some, including the cochlear
implant, for example), there is scope for increased potential contact between
the spoken use of English and that of ISL. This would go some way towards
accounting for the fact that younger Deaf women make greater use of mouth-
ings than older Deaf women, but it still does not account for the fact that
male signers of all ages make less use of mouthing than Deaf women.
For the male signers, we must also remember that oral education was
introduced some ten years later in St Joseph’s School for Deaf Boys, in
1958 (Matthews 1996b), and as we have seen, signicant lexical dierences
between male and female variants of ISL have been documented (LeMaster
1990). Militzer found that for the older male signers (aged 55 years and
above), many of whom were educated before the introduction of oralism,
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 82 10/04/2012 11:00

The Phonetics and Phonology of ISL 83
some 53 per cent of lexical signs articulated are accompanied by no mouth
action at all. This contrasts with the female signers of the same age where 89
per cent of all lexical signs co-occur with a mouthing or a mouth action.
She found that 75 per cent of the lexical items articulated by women in
the 18–35 year age group were accompanied by mouthings while only 52 per
cent of lexical items articulated by men in this age group co-occurred with
mouthings.
In the 40–55-year age group, 60 per cent of lexical items articulated by
women co-occurred with mouthings while only 39 per cent of lexical items
produced by men co-occurred with a mouthing.
For those aged 55 years and above, 45 per cent of lexical items produced by
women co-occurred with mouthings and only 12 per cent of those produced
by men used mouthings. (See Figures 4.4 and 4.5.)
Militzer’s preliminary ndings can be generalised by saying that Irish Deaf
women use language contact-induced mouthing much more consistently than
men, regardless of age, with younger women using mouthing most. She also
found that the use of mouth gestures and mouthing seems to be interrelated.
For example, women aged 55 years and above used mouth gestures in 31 per
cent of all mouthed instances. Where the use of mouthing increases, the rate
of mouth gestures decreases. For men, the use of mouth gestures is much
more stable, with younger Deaf men using mouth gestures in 34 per cent of
all mouthed situations.
If we now turn to examine what mouthings and mouth gestures look like,
Figure 4.4 Mouthings and mouth gestures as used by Deaf women in the SOI corpus
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 83 10/04/2012 11:00

84 Irish Sign Language
and whether they have a phonological basis (in addition to the morpho-
logical, lexical and syntactic bases noted earlier), then we need to consider
whether mouthings can serve as the basis for minimal pair formation in ISL.
That is, are there signs which have the same handshape, location, movement
and orientation, where meaning dierence arises solely on the basis of the
mouthing or mouth gesture?
In Example 4.11(a) the signer signs FEEL and mouths ‘feel’. Compare this
with 4.11(b) where she signs LIVE and mouths ‘live’.4
Example 4.11
The salient point for consideration here is the fact that the manual articula-
tory parameters for the signs LIVE and FEEL are identical. They both are
one-handed signs, articulated with the middle nger bent, making contact
Figure 4.5 Mouth actions (combined) used by ISL signers aged 55 years and above
(a) FEEL (b) LIVE
Michelle (05) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 84 10/04/2012 11:00

The Phonetics and Phonology of ISL 85
with the signer’s torso at the centre of the chest and travelling upwards along
the sternum. The only phonological feature which distinguishes them from
each other is the mouthing accompanying the manual sign. Another example
is the pair HARD and STRICT, which are both two-handed signs, where the
dominant hand adopts a baby-C-handshape and makes contact with the non-
dominant hand, which takes an ISL-L-handshape, palm facing downward.
The only distinguishing feature is the mouthing of either ‘strict’ or ‘hard’.
What we should also note, given Militzer’s preliminary ndings, is that this
kind of minimal pair is more likely to occur in the signing of women, and
more so in that of younger women. In contrast, older men are much less likely
to use a mouthed element and would either expect the lexical items to be dif-
ferentiated from each other on the basis of context or, if there is the potential
for confusion or a desire to clarify, they may ngerspell the item in lieu of or
in addition to using the manual sign.
Mouth gestures can also serve to create minimal pairs. Mouth gestures are
mouth patterns not derived from spoken languages.5 The category of mouth
gestures in ISL includes the adverbials created on the mouth including those
which we gloss as ‘mm’, ‘th’, ‘ee’ and ‘cs’. We will discuss the form and func-
tion of these non-manual features in Chapter 5, but here, we wish to point
out that these mouth gestures can serve a phonological purpose: they can
serve to create minimal pairs where only the mouthed element is dierent in a
sign that is otherwise manually articulated in the same way. For now, we can
simply note that mouthed elements – both mouthings and mouth gestures –
serve a phonological role for most signers in ISL. The exception to this rule
may be older male signers, and the SOI corpus data suggest that the increased
role of mouthing in ISL is pervasive, suggesting a shift arising from language
contact.
4.7 Constraints and phonological processes
Not all combinations of features that play a role in the phonetic and phono-
logical production of signs are possible in Irish Sign Language. As in other
sign languages, ISL draws on a portion of the possible permutations for the
combination of features, imposing constraints on yet other combinations of
features. We need to remember that physical constraints apply to the articula-
tion of all sign languages. In addition, there are language-specic constraints
imposed by the rules of a specic language. These relate to the manner in
which we perceive and produce spatial and visual data. McDonnell (1996)
lists two forms of constraint that are brought to bear on sign formation:
production constraints and perceptual constraints. In the next section, we
outline some of his ndings for ISL.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 85 10/04/2012 11:00

86 Irish Sign Language
4.7.1 Perceptual constraints on ISL
We can begin by noting that signs are characteristically produced in ‘signing
space’, that is the articulation space conned to the area at or near the
signer’s body, which is readily visible to interlocutors. This was illustrated in
Chapter 2 (Figure 2.1).
It has been noted that signs produced at the periphery of signing space tend
to exhibit larger handshape distinctions, larger movements and consequently,
increased temporal duration (McDonnell 1996). In contrast, the central
focal area in signing space is an area of ‘optimal and visual acuity’ where it
is easier for interlocutors to detect relatively smaller handshape and location
distinctions (34). McDonnell lists PARTY, TREE and SUN as ISL signs that
illustrate larger handshape distinctions occurring at the periphery of signing
space, while ORANGE, YESTERDAY and APPLE illustrate some of the
smaller distinctions that occur at the central focal area in ISL (ibid.).
4.7.2 Production constraints on ISL
Certain physical constraints apply to the production of signed utterances.
Typically, signed utterances must be produced in a way that makes them
visible to their interlocutor, with signers typically facing their interlocutors,
having gained eye contact before commencing their ‘turn’. Other constraints
are imposed by linguistic criteria. For example, Battison (1978) proposed
two constraints on sign formation in American Sign Language: a symmetry
constraint and a dominance constraint. These can be considered to be a
single feature, which applies to the formational constraints on two-handed
signs. These constraints seem to hold across other documented signed
languages, as proposed for example by Sutton-Spence and Woll (1999)
for British Sign Language, with variation for feature inventories across
languages.
The symmetry constraint applies to signs that are articulated using two
active hands. This constraint demands that both hands use the same hand-
shape in the same relative location and perform similar motor acts. The
symmetry constraint is very pervasive in ISL and some examples from the
SOI corpus are shown in example 4.12, where in the articulation of the signs
for NEED, MOTHER, JOB and GO-OFF-TO, both hands take the same
handshape.6
The dominance constraint proposed by Battison also applies to two-handed
signs, specically those signs in which the dominant hand acts upon the non-
dominant hand. The dominance constraint species that the dominant hand
may assume any handshape that is compatible with ‘contact signs’, that is
the handshape held by the non-dominant hand. The non-dominant hand is
restricted with respect to the handshapes it can utilise: it must use the same
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 86 10/04/2012 11:00

The Phonetics and Phonology of ISL 87
Example 4.12
handshape as the dominant hand or one of a restricted set of other hand-
shapes. The signs in Example 4.13 illustrate the dominance constraint in ISL:
HUSBAND, PLAN, MONEY and TIME.
In the signs in Example 4.13, the non-dominant hand takes what are con-
sidered to be unmarked handshapes, in each case a at ISL-L-handshape,
while the dominant hand takes more complex handshapes. Here, we use the
convention of referring to ISL-specic handshapes that align with the manual
alphabet, and where these handshapes are also common to American Sign
Language, we simply list the handshape (for example, V, K, L, etc.) as is
common in signed linguistic descriptions of this kind.
The signer in Example 4.13(a) is using an open-ISL-G-handshape, whose
citation form is also known as the F-handshape in other signed linguistic
research. In 4.13(b) we see the V-handshape. In 4.13(c) and (d) the signers
use the ISL-T-handshape, though the point of contact between the dominant
hand and non-dominant hand diers between the two signers.
(a) NEED (b) MOTHER
Valerie (12) Personal Stories (Dublin) Fergus M. (07) Personal Stories (Dublin)
(c) JOB (d) GO-OFF-TO
Fiona (36) Personal Stories (Waterford) Peter (18) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 87 10/04/2012 11:00

88 Irish Sign Language
Example 4.13
In addition to signs composed using a dominant and non-dominant hand,
we can also consider signs that require sequential contact with the body.
Wilbur (1987: 29) outlines some constraints on production for such American
Sign Language signs. She reports that in ASL, rst contact may occur at the
head and second contact at the chest area. However, a move from contact
at the head to the edge of the hand may breach ASL-specic linguistic con-
straints. McDonnell (1996) reports that similar sequential contact constraints
appear to exist in ISL and other sign languages, but as yet, it is not clear if this
is a universal feature. When we come to discuss compound formation in ISL,
we will make reference again to this movement constraint.
4.8 Summary
In this chapter we have introduced the idea of a phonetics of ISL, and outlined
the range of handshapes that arise in ISL (following the work of Matthews
(a) HUSBAND (b) PLAN
Eilish (10) Personal Stories (Dublin) Bernadette (02) Personal Stories (Dublin)
(c) MONEY (d) TIME
Michael (34) Personal Stories (Galway) Eric (32) Personal Stories (Cork)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 88 10/04/2012 11:00

The Phonetics and Phonology of ISL 89
(1996a, 2005); and Ó Baoill and Matthews (2000)). We noted that when we
consider the phonology of signed languages, we are concerned not only with
the form of the handshape that arises but also, fundamentally, with whether
the handshape dierence is perceived as leading to a meaning dierence. That
is, whether a variation has phonemic or allophonic status. We noted that one
way of testing for the phonological status of handshapes is to explore the
existence of minimal pairs. We also found that we can test for the phonologi-
cal status of other parameters such as location, movement and orientation.
This discussion reveals that ISL displays the duality of structure found in all
human languages: there are structural units (phonemes) that while themselves
meaningless contribute to the formation of meaningful elements.
We also looked at the non-manual features of signs and discussed in par-
ticular the role of mouthings and mouth gestures in ISL. We saw that the use
of mouthing and mouth gesture is interrelated and has gendered-generational
associations. We found that women make greater use of mouthings than
men, and that amongst men, older men make very little use of mouthings, in
great part because they were educated before the introduction of oralism in
St Joseph’s School for Deaf Boys or just on the cusp of the introduction of
oralism. From a phonological perspective, we noted that for most signers,
other than older male signers, mouthing and mouth gesture can serve as the
basis for minimal pairs in ISL, demonstrating that mouthings have a pho-
nological function in ISL in addition to lexical, morphological and syntactic
functions, which we will address in later chapters. In the next chapter, we
consider another level of structure: the morphology of ISL.
Notes
1. As with spoken languages it is possible to analyse phonemes further
as combinations of more abstract elements, often called features. Thus
Sandler and Lillo-Martin (2006) analyse handshapes in terms of indi-
vidual ngers and nger positions.
2. These are directional verb forms that inect in the signing space for rst
person and second person. We discuss directional verbs later in Chapter 5.
3. It should be mentioned that despite Stokoe’s resistance towards inclusion
of a separate orientation parameter, his notational system does in fact
specify orientation via subscript or handshape.
4. Here the non-dominant hand maintains a fragment of the preceding sign,
WHERE, in what Liddell (2003) calls a fragment buoy, which we discuss
further in Chapter 8.
5. See Sutton-Spence and Boyes Braem (2001) for discussion.
6. For an extended piece of discourse that demonstrates the pervasiveness of
the symmetry constraint, see Lawrence, personal story no. 19, at <http://
www.lat-mpi.eu/tools/elan/download> (accessed 25 November 2011).
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 89 10/04/2012 11:00

Inectional and Derivational
5 Morphology
5.1 Introduction
This chapter deals with the identication of morphemes in ISL, an essential
precursor to our discussion on how words are formed in ISL. We will discuss
the forms of modication of signs that can be considered morphological in
nature; and we will examine the role of inectional morphology, in particular
in verbs, and discuss its relationship to verb classes. We will consider a range
of topics including the marking of agreement and of number on verbs; the
marking of aspect; classier predicates; and compound formation. First, we
begin by considering the status of words and morphemes in ISL.
5.2 Words and morphemes
We begin by asking whether it is appropriate to consider individual signs as
words. Brennan (1994) concludes that while there are diculties with terms
that originate in the examination of spoken languages, the unit that is known
as the ‘sign’ in signed languages
clearly functions as the linguistic unit that we know as the word. We do
not usually exploit a separate term for this unit in relation to written as
opposed to spoken language, even though notions of written word and
spoken word are not totally congruous. (13)
We will follow Brenan in using the term ‘word’ in a general sense to incorpo-
rate spoken, signed and written language. We will use the term ‘sign’ when
referring only to signed languages, taking as given that ‘signs’ are equivalent
to ‘words’ in terms of grammatical role.
We note in passing that though there is evidence that words in spoken lan-
guages have cognitive salience for speakers (McQueen and Cutler 1998; Sapir
1921), and it is notoriously dicult to provide a universal denition. Critical
criteria in one language, for example phonological criteria, do not necessar-
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 90 10/04/2012 11:00

Inectional and Derivational Morphology 91
ily apply in another. We encounter similar issues in signed languages where
the notion of a sign may be clear in ideal or isolation cases, thus satisfying
McQueen and Cutler (1998) and Bloomeld’s (1926) criterion for a word that
it be a ‘minimal free form’, but there may be diculties in segmenting and
extracting these units from the ow of signing.
A morpheme is the smallest meaningful unit in a language (Bloomeld
1933). The word ‘meaningful’ is important here. Some meaningful units
can stand alone and function as words, like English bike or shoe: these mor-
phemes cannot be pared back any further and still be said to be meaningful.
Indeed, if we try to analyse further, we nd ourselves working at the level of
phonology. Morphemes like bike and shoe are considered to be ‘free mor-
phemes’. In contrast, morphemes like –s (in shoes), -er (in biker) and -ing (in
going) cannot stand alone as words, but they also carry meaning. Units like
these are called ‘bound morphemes’. Signed languages also exhibit free and
bound morphemes. For example, there are ISL morphemes that function as
words in their own right like HOUSE, GIRL, SISTER and HAVE. Other
signs are made up of both free and bound morphemes, such as verbs inected
for agreement, as we shall see.
In Chapter 4, we talked about the phonological parameters that facilitate
word formation in signed languages. Here, we have to consider whether
some or all of the phonological features we described (handshape, move-
ment, location, orientation and non-manual features) might also function
as morphemes. For example, most sign linguists argue that the movement
parameter can be morphological. For example, it has been shown that zero
movement of an item is associated with existence (EXIST). A stamping
movement is associated with the establishment of a locus (BE-LOCATED).
The physical movement of an entity through signing space is associated
with physical (and often also metaphorical) movement (MOVE), while a
movement that traces the extent of an item’s size or shape is also considered
morphemic in nature (EXTENT). These movements are said to combine with
specic handshapes, often called ‘classier handshapes’ in the literature, to
produce classier predicates, which we discuss below in some detail. Before
that, we can look at the articulation of the ISL verb GIVE-TO in Example
5.1. Here, the signer marks the onset of the verb at the forward side right
(+sr) of his signing frame, which we will call the +sr locus. The oset of the
verb is at the signer’s torso, which is designated the ‘canonical’ locus or ‘c’
(Engberg-Pedersen 1993).
We can say that to articulate sr+GIVE-TO+c the location +sr is needed to
complete the sign, so this location is a phoneme in this sign. But the locus +sr
also carries meaning: at the location that +sr refers to, a person other than the
signer gives something to the signer (or indeed, the person who is co- referential
with the +c locus). Because of this, we can say that +sr is a morpheme in this
analysis, as argued for ASL by Padden (1988). We can also note that if the
onset and oset points for the verb were reversed (that is, the signer signs
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 91 10/04/2012 11:00

92 Irish Sign Language
Example 5.1
c+GIVE-TO+sr), then the meaning of the sign would change to ‘I gave (it) to
(someone)(the named/un-named person co-referential with locus +sr)’.
5.2.1 Loci
At this juncture it is necessary to say something about the concept of loci in
signed languages, drawing on Scott Liddell’s work (Liddell 1990). Firstly,
we can say that a location in space where an entity has been established is
referred to as locus (ibid.). The signer can establish an entity by articulating
a lexical sign, or as we will describe later a classier, at a certain location in
space, or by producing the sign and then pointing or directing eyegaze to a
location in space. Once an entity has been assigned a locus, it can be referred
to later in the discourse, in ways that we shall talk about later. A locus does
not necessarily have to be a location in the signing space: a location on the
signer’s body is also referred to as a locus. When a sign has to be articulated
at a certain location on the signer’s body, this locus is phonologically impor-
tant. When locus has such a phonological purpose, Liddell refers to it as
having an articulatory function.
A locus can also have a three-dimensional function, in which case it stands
for a spatial location (ibid.). When this function arises, the signing space
may be thought of as a stage on which entities are located. Signers use clas-
sier predicates to represent entities in the real world and the entities will be
located in relation to each other as they are in the real world. This kind of
space is referred to as topographical space in some of the literature (Sutton-
Spence and Woll 1999).
When a locus is established using a classier predicate, the signer will rst
typically articulate the lexical sign for this entity and then produce the clas-
sier predicate at a certain location. For example, a signer might produce a
name sign (see Chapter 6) for a person and then locate the person in space
(a) sr+GIVE_TO+c (b)
Fergus D. (06) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 92 10/04/2012 11:00

Inectional and Derivational Morphology 93
using a classier handshape. The person is now considered to be at this loca-
tion in signing space. Producing a sign and then pointing at a location to
establish a locus is very common when using topographical space. A signer
can, for example, produce the name sign for a particular place and then point
at a certain location in space to establish the locus for this place. If more
than one place is to be assigned a locus, the second locus will be established
in relation to the rst one, like referring back to a map. A good illustration
of this is seen in Example 5.2 where the signer is talking about the war in
Iraq. He assigns IRAQ a locus in canonical space (a), and then positions
Kuwait to the south of the locus for IRAQ (b). Later, Turkey is introduced
and assigned a locus to the north of the position for IRAQ (d). With these
three loci established, the signer then can talk about how American and allied
forces discussed a possible invasion of Iraq (c) via Turkey in the north and
Kuwait in the south without having to re-establish these points of reference.
That is, the signer builds on the established loci positions and then embeds
semantic relations by creating associations between the geographical loca-
tions and the logistics of war-time planning on the part of the Americans and
allied forces.
Example 5.2
(a) IRAQ (b) KUWAIT (relative to IRAQ)
Senan (01) Personal Stories (Dublin)
(c) INVADE-IRAQ (d) (TURKEY) BORDERS IRAQ
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 93 10/04/2012 11:00

94 Irish Sign Language
A locus can also be established by articulating a lexical sign, often at a point
in space that diers from where the citation form is normally articulated, and
then directing eyegaze towards a certain location in space. This way of estab-
lishing a locus seems to occur less frequently than the way described above.
For example, in the narrative on the war in Iraq, the signer does not assign
Turkey a locus by using a classier to refer to its position in signing space, as he
does in setting up Iraq (with a CL-B-handshape) or Kuwait (an INDEX to the
locus’s relative relationship with the previously established IRAQ). Instead,
he gives the sign for TURKEY, then ngerspells Turkey, and then implies its
location via the use of the CL-5-spread-handshape used to illustrate the pos-
sible path of invasion from the north, that is through Turkey, on the dominant
hand. Later in this piece, the signer talks about how the allied forces sought to
secure Turkish government approval for this plan of action. In doing this, he
notes that Turkey is located at the northern border of Iraq (5.2(d)), where he is
building on the previously established descriptions of the position of Iraq and
the intended simultaneous invasion via northern and southern borders.
As we shall see in the next section, agreement verbs are verbs that make
use of space to link with a subject or object, or both. The verb is directed at
a point in the signing space and in this way the form of the verb shows what
kind of agreement is involved. In sentences that include agreement verbs, the
signer rst typically establishes an index, that is he or she locates an entity at
a particular place in the signing space and then directs the agreement verb
towards this place. In ASL it is also possible to produce the agreement verb
rst and then mention the referent (Liddell 1990). When entities are assigned
to a locus in space, it is referred to as the frame of reference (Engberg-Pedersen
1993). According to Engberg-Pedersen, the frame of reference in Danish Sign
Language can be either deictic or anaphoric. It is deictic when the signer
points at the entity he or she is referring to and the point of reference can
change if the signer changes position in space or if the entities referred to
change locations. Thus, the deictic frame of reference ‘is determined by the
actual locations of the entities or places to which the signer refers’ (71).
The anaphoric use of space follows some conventions with regard to how
relations between established entities can be structured in the signing space
(ibid.). When two entities are compared or contrasted, the signer uses the
convention of comparison and locates one entity in the space on the left and
another entity in the space on the right (ibid.).
Sometimes, as we saw in the last example, entities that are semantically
related will have the same locus in the signing space, unless a separate locus
is necessary in the narrative, thus exhibiting a relationship based on semantic
anity. These relationships include, for example, those that hold between a
person and a place, such as a workplace or a club. It is also possible to think
of these relationships as being layered or nested at a locus, creating and then
building on associated relationships that hold between entities established at
that locus.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 94 10/04/2012 11:00

Inectional and Derivational Morphology 95
The conventions for loci in Danish Sign Language take place in two dimen-
sions: (1) a side-to-side dimension and (2) a diagonal dimension which goes
from the signer´s right side and forward-left, or from the signer’s left side and
forward-right. If the entities being referred to are equivalent in the discourse,
the signer can use the side-to-side dimension. Engberg-Pedersen (1993) reports
that in DSL, if the signer, or the person represented by that locus, has semantic
anity to one of the entities being referred to, he or she will place that entity on
his or her left or right side and place the other more forward in the signing space.
Even though the same referent can be situated at dierent loci, between
texts or in the same text in DSL, Engberg-Pedersen argues that the choice
of locus is not arbitrary: ‘The conventions for choosing loci show that, even
though loci have a deictic basis, they also reect discourse-dependent seman-
tic-pragmatic features of the referents’ (40). This is a point that we return
to in Chapter 8 when we come to look at discourse in ISL. Another issue
we consider in more depth in Chapter 8 is the functionality of ‘list-buoys’
(Liddell 2003). For now, we can say that entities can also be assigned a locus
on the ngertips, with each ngertip then being activated as a locus that is
co-referential with that entity.
A number of constraints operate on the formation of loci. For DSL, the
signer does not exploit the locus behind his or her back if using agreement
verbs, polymorphemic verbs or reported speech. In these cases, a locus
behind a signer’s back will be moved to his or her side (Engberg-Pedersen
1993). This seems to be a characteristic generally shared by ISL, as discussed
in Chapter 4.
Shifting locus or ‘reference shifting’ is a common way to show dierent per-
spectives in signed languages (Engberg-Pedersen 1993; Janzen 2005; Padden
1990). In Chapter 8, we discuss this phenomenon in greater detail, but for now,
we can say that in shifted reference, a signer can take on the role of another
person by shifting into the locus that has been established for that person
(Engberg-Pedersen 1993) or remain static and change his or her facial expres-
sions, eyegaze and/or head orientation, to reect the character and emotions of
the target referent (Janzen 2005). When a signer is quoting another person, he or
she can shift reference and articulate pronouns from this person’s point of view
so that the signer is speaking as the other person, rather than using reported
speech as might be the case in English (Engberg-Pedersen 1993). Shifted refer-
ence can then occur to report the speech of other participants, and signers can
also use shifted reference to report action, states and thoughts (Poulin and
Miller 1995). We will discuss these strategies in more detail in Chapter 8.
5.3 Grammatical morphemes
Signs are inected for grammatical information in ways that sometimes par-
allel spoken languages. Thus while plural in English nouns is often marked
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 95 10/04/2012 11:00

96 Irish Sign Language
by suxation of a bound morpheme, for example –s in singular/plural pairs
like girl/girls, tree/trees and noun/nouns, in other spoken languages plurals are
marked by full or partial reduplication, for example in the Philippines lan-
guage Pangasinan, where manók, ‘chicken’, has the plural form manómanók,
‘chickens’ (Rubino 2001). Similarly in ISL, plurals are often formed through
a process of full reduplication. In Example 5.3, the sign HOUSE+++ (each
+ stands for a repetition of the sign) communicates the meaning ‘houses’ and
not ‘three houses’.
Example 5.3
Klima and Bellugi (1979) describe the growing realisation that American Sign
Language displays morphological patterning. They report that American
Deaf informants would comment, when asked about the kind of event that
allowed specic forms of inected signs, that a form would be used, depend-
ing on the mood of the signer. Initially, Klima and Bellugi interpreted this to
mean that such inections were not governed by grammatical rules but were
optional or stylistic additions. Subsequently, however, the obligatory nature
of morphological rules became clear:
Such judgments suggested that the occurrence of modulations [. . .] like
morphological inections in spoken languages – was motivated by and
restricted to certain linguistic contexts. (246)
In the next section we look at the morphological marking of verbs in ISL.
5.4 Morphological verb classes in ISL
Following McDonnell (1996) we can begin with a basic distinction in ISL
between plain verbs, following Padden (1988), which are uninected and
therefore do not take agreement axes, and agreement verbs whose axes
show agreement with person or location. Somewhat separate from these two
basic groups are classier verbs, which comprise a hand conguration and a
Reduplication to mark plurals: HOUSE+++ (‘houses’)
Geraldine (20) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 96 10/04/2012 11:00

Inectional and Derivational Morphology 97
movement, with the hand conguration giving information about predica-
tion and semantic classication. We deal with classier verbs in section 5.5.
Agreement verbs can be further divided into those that show person agree-
ment with subject/actor, object/undergoer, etc. and those whose axes are
controlled by locations.1 We begin by discussing person agreement verbs.
An example of a person agreement verb is GIVE as in Example 5.4, where
the onset of the verb agrees with the actor argument and the oset corre-
sponds to the undergoer argument, here a recipient. The theme, the thing
given, must be represented independently, here by an independent nominal.
Example 5.4
There are a number of variations on this basic type of person agreement.
One is reciprocal agreement verbs, for instance CONSULT (also frequently
glossed as DISCUSS) in Example 5.5. In this type of verb the morphological
markers of both actor and undergoer occur on both hands, indicating the
dual or reciprocal nature of the action.
Example 5.5
c+GIVE+f (protoypical form) ‘(I) gave (the dog) (food)’
Rebecca (38) Personal Stories (Waterford)
c+DISCUSS+f
f+DISCUSS+c
‘We discussed the issue’
Annie (26) Personal Stories (Wexford)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 97 10/04/2012 11:00

98 Irish Sign Language
A further type is the reverse or backward agreement verbs, where the rel-
evant participants are inectionally marked but the position of the axes
is reversed and the verb begins at the location of the undergoer and moves
towards the location of the actor, for instance CHOOSE in Example 5.6.
Example 5.6
A nal type is single agreement verbs, such as SAY-TO and SEE, where
agreement is shown with only one argument. The onset is uninected and
therefore there is no agreement with a subject/actor, while the oset agrees
with an object/undergoer argument, as can be seen in terms of dominant
hand activity in Example 5.7.
Example 5.7
Locative agreement verbs are morphologically linked to locations rather than
participants. In semantic terms they agree with source, goal or location rather
than actor or undergoer and give the location of an entity or the path of its
movement. The verb may agree with a single location as in Example 5.8(a) or
two as in 5.8(b).
c+CHOOSE+sl
‘I chose/picked (someone/something)’
Kevin (17) Frog Story (Dublin)
TELL-ME
‘(The tour guide) told me’
Mary (33) Personal Stories (Galway)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 98 10/04/2012 11:00

Inectional and Derivational Morphology 99
Example 5.8
Patrick McDonnell (1996) identies a subclass of locative agreement verbs,
which instead of marking agreement with locations in space incorporate specic
locations on the body, such as SLAP and CATCH-Y-HAND, or, as in Example
5.9, LICK-MY-FACE, where the signer is telling how a bear at the zoo licks a
boy’s face. Here, his non-dominant hand is representing the bear’s tongue while
the rest of his body (including his facial expression) represents the boy’s experi-
ence of the event (see Chapter 8 for discussion of ‘body partitioning’).
Example 5.9
If we accept this last subdivision of verb patterning, we can summarise the
morphologically dened classes of verbs as in Figure 5.1.
(a) DRIVE+f (onset) (a) DRIVE+f (offset) (a) HOME
‘(I) drove home’ ‘(I) drove home’ ‘(I) drove home’
Fergus D. (06) Personal Stories (Dublin)
(b) c+FLY-TO+sr (onset) (b) c+FLY-TO+sr (offset)
‘The plane flies from (x) to (y)’ ‘The plane flies from (x) to (y)’
Senan (01) Personal Stories (Dublin)
f+LICK-BOY’S-FACE+c
‘(The bear) licked (the boy’s) face’
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 99 10/04/2012 11:00

100 Irish Sign Language
5.5 Number
An important means of marking plural on nouns is reduplication, as
described earlier, although, as we shall see later, classier handshapes are
important in counting, or quantifying entities. Verbs too have a role: person
agreement verbs, for example, show a distinction between singular and plural
arguments. The singular form, which is used as the basic or reference form,
involves agreement with a single locus. Variations from this can give informa-
tion about plural arguments. There is a general or non-specic plural, which
is formed by a smooth horizontal concave arc placed before the oset of the
verb, as in Example 5.10.
Example 5.10
A dual form can consist of two separate oset points, located close
together and connected by a small convex arc, as in Example 5.11.
Figure 5.1 Morphological verb classes
‘I told (all of) them’
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 100 10/04/2012 11:00

Inectional and Derivational Morphology 101
Example 5.11
Alternatively, it may be formed by a two-handed sign in which each hand
replicates the same form, as in Example 5.12.
Example 5.12
It is also possible to form an exhaustive plural where the action is allocated
to each of the group, by a series of short convex arcs, as in Example 5.13.
Example 5.13
‘I told both of them’
TELL-ALL
Fergus M. (07) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 101 10/04/2012 11:00

102 Irish Sign Language
The repetitions can be viewed as a modication of the verb, especially where
the focus is not on the individuation of a plural argument, in which case the
term ‘attributive aspect’ has been used. This form occurs with a distributive
sense, as in Example 5.14.
Example 5.14
MEET-PERSON+++
‘They all met each other (distributive)’
Sean (13) Personal Stories (Dublin)
c+CL: INDEX ‘ONE’+sr+c+f+sl
‘I gave one to each of them’
Frankie (11) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 102 10/04/2012 11:00

Inectional and Derivational Morphology 103
While Example 5.14 is an example of a person agreement verb, locative agree-
ment verbs also behave in the same way.
5.6 Aspect
Although tense is not marked morphologically on verbs in ISL, aspect is an
important inectional category. Aspect systems allow speakers to relate situ-
ations and time, but instead of xing situations in time relative to the act of
speaking like tense does, aspect allows speakers to view an event in various
ways: as complete, or incomplete, as so short as to involve almost no time, as
something stretched over a perceptible period, or as something repeated over
a period. As Charles Hockett (1958: 237) described it, ‘Aspects have to do,
not with the location of an event in time, but with its temporal distribution
or contour.’
Describing aspectual morphology in ASL, Klima and Bellugi (1979: 245)
noted that the distinctions were primarily marked by dynamic qualities of
movement superimposed on signs employing dierences in speed, tension
and length. We shall see that in ISL too aspectual marking is associated
with modications to the movement parameters, but that reduplication, seen
earlier in nominal plurals, is particularly signicant. The meaning conveyed
by reduplication depends on the inherent situation type of the verb. Thus
verbs may inherently describe situations that are static, unchanging for a
period, or dynamic, involving change. Among the latter, dierent verb types
correspond to dierent dynamic situations. Some, which may be termed
durational, describe processes continuing through time, while others, punc-
tual verbs, describe point events that are perceived to involve very little time.
These verb types interact with aspectual morphology to produce dierent
interpretations. Aspectual distinctions give information about clauses and
we will see that they may be marked in ISL on verbs and other elements, such
as time phrases. We will look at three types of imperfective aspect, beginning
with repetition or iterative aspect.
In Example 5.15, the signer produces an aspectually modied variant of the
punctual verb KNOCK. In citation form, KNOCK typically has two repeti-
tions. Here, signifying iterative aspect, there are four. The movement parame-
ter in citation form involves a straight line from close to the signer to the locus
associated with the object (typically a door) that is knocked on. Here, the
signer reports knocking repeatedly, and with urgency, on her neighbour’s door
when she discovered her son was missing from his bedroom.
We see the straight-line movement motif repeated in other punctual verbs
such as HEART-BEATING+++++ (with multiple reiterations of the sign)
in Example 5.16 from the same narration and REMOVE-PARTS-OF-
ENGINE+++++ in a story about a mechanic taking parts of the car’s engine
out, one after the other in Example 5.17.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 103 10/04/2012 11:00

104 Irish Sign Language
Example 5.15
Example 5.16
In Example 5.18 the reduplicated form of the durational verb SIGN produces
a durative aspectual reading that could be translated as ‘kept on signing’.
HEART-BEATING+++++
‘My heart was pounding’
Catherine (31) Personal Stories (Cork)
KNOCK++++
‘I was banging down (the neighbour’s) door’
Catherine (31) Personal Stories (Cork)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 104 10/04/2012 11:00

Inectional and Derivational Morphology 105
Example 5.17
This is premodied by a gesture which is glossed as ‘calm face’ and adds the
meaning ‘I put on a brave face’. The ‘mm’ morpheme adverbial indicates
that the action occurred ‘in the normal way’ or ‘normally’ (Baker-Shenk and
Cokely 1980; Liddell 1978; Liddell 1980; Ó Baoill and Matthews 2000).
Example 5.18
Presenter: HELLO [sign name] // YOUNG PRESENT-ER JOIN SIGN OF TIMES
BEFORE-BEFORE // HOW YOU (c INDEX f) FEEL FIRST PRESENT
‘Hello (name). You joined us as a young presenter some time ago. How did you
feel about presenting?’
_______mm
Interviewee: ME NERVOUS [‘repeated regularly’] // ‘calm face’ SIGN SIGN
SIGN // BUT GOOD
‘At first my heart was thumping but I put on a brave face [and kept on signing
normally] and it was OK’
Sign of the Times (RTÉ, June 1996)
Aspect operates at the level of the clause and similar morphological marking
can be applied to time expressions, as in Example 5.19 from a story about
football training. Here the time phrase THURSDAY-THURSDAY is redu-
plicated and articulated with a repeated, small, straight-line action, similar
to that described for ASL by Baker-Shenk and Cokely (1980), which indi-
cates that Thursday evening meetings were occurring regularly. Similarly,
THERE-THERE-THERE is articulated in the same manner, reinforcing the
message that these sessions occurred without fail.
Example 5.19
THERE TRAINING THURSDAY-THURSDAY THERE-THERE-THERE // STAY
SAME ‘permanency’ (on sequence line)
‘(Those picked) were training every Thursday without fail’
(Leeson 1996: 83)
REMOVE-PARTS-OF-ENGINE+++++
‘(He) removed all of the parts (of the engine)’
Fergus D. (06) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 105 10/04/2012 11:00

106 Irish Sign Language
A further aspectual distinction is created where the inection is formed with
a repeated circular movement as shown in Example 5.20 where the redupli-
cated form of the durative verb CRY shows this circular movement. The
meaning communicated is of the extended duration of the event, the crying.
This parallels aspectual forms as described for ASL by Baker-Shenk and
Cokely (1980) and Klima and Bellugi (1979). The aspectual information is
augmented by the non-manual features that communicate that the subject
cried over a long time and with distress.
Example 5.20
A second example, Example 5.21, is taken from Sign of the Times (August
1995) where a young man talks about going to the cinema:
Example 5.21
GO CINEMA ENJOY WATCH WATCH A LOT LAUGH LAUGH ENJOY ENJOY
GREAT TIME
‘I go to the cinema and enjoy watching the actors. Comedies can be very funny
and really enjoyable; a great time’
(Leeson 1996: 85)
In this example, ENJOY ENJOY is presented with a circular motion similar
to that described for ‘CRY-CRY-CRY’ above, giving a durative interpreta-
tion; although with fewer repetitions of the verb than in the previous example.
This may be inuenced by two factors. First, this sentence also includes other
aspectually inected verbs (WATCH WATCH / LAUGH LAUGH) and
includes the lexical item ‘A LOT’ which may constrain the need for further
reduplication of ‘ENJOY’. Second, the sign ‘ENJOY’, when presented in
citation form contains inherent movement. Bergman (1983) discusses the
constraints which operate on modulation of signs which have such inherent
movement in Swedish Sign Language (SSL). In some cases, only one repeti-
tion of the citation form occurs.
CRY++
‘(The participants) bawled their eyes out’
Sean (13) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 106 10/04/2012 11:00

Inectional and Derivational Morphology 107
A further illustration is in Example 5.22 from an interview of a middle-
aged deaf man, talking about his schooldays.
Example 5.22
WHEN ME WAS ABOUT NINE / ONE TIME ME GO TO at f.r. LEARN ORAL //
TEACHER (his sign name) fingerspells name // r.s. TEACH-TEACH // r / s ME
‘One time when I was about 9 years old I had to go to a speech class. The
teacher, a Christian Brother, taught me for (what seemed) a long time’
(David Breslin, interviewed in the TG4/Irish Deaf Society documentary, Angry
Silence)
The aspectual distinctions described thus far have been imperfective in
nature, in that they focus on the internal structure of the event or process
rather than expressing the external, perfective viewpoint that focuses on the
event as a whole, in particular its end points. This basic distinction between
perfective and imperfective types of aspectual distinction is well documented
in the languages of the world: Dahl (1985) and Bybee et al. (1994) identify it
as the most commonly found and in many senses the most basic distinction.
ISL marks a perfective aspect, the completive, by the use of the verb FINISH
as a supporting or auxiliary verb, as in Example 5.23(a).
Example 5.23
 Example 5.24
(a) *PLAN FOR MY DAUGHTER CL-INDEX+sl WELCOME HOME CL-INDEX+fl
PLAN READY 2xGOOD FLY TOGETHER PARTY FINISH
‘We planned to welcome my daughter home. We had already planned (what we
would do). We would go to the airport together. We had planned the party. It was
all organised’
(Peter (18) Personal Stories (Dublin))
(b) . . . PLAY-VIOLIN SWEATING / COMPLETION HAVE SLEEP / RELIEF /
WALK-OFF / ‘F’ / SECOND / NO HOPE / PLAY-VIOLIN / NO HOPE /
(a) FINISH (perfective) (b) COMPLETION (perfective) (c) COMPLETION (perfective)
Peter (18) Personal Stories (onset) (offset)
(Dublin) Nicholas (22) Personal Stories Nicholas (22) Personal Stories
(Wexford) (Wexford)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 107 10/04/2012 11:00

108 Irish Sign Language
PLAY-VIOLIN+++ / COMPLETION SLEEP / RELIEF . . .
‘. . . and he played the violin, sweating buckets as he played. Eventually, one lion
slept. Relieved, he was walking away when he realised that the second lion was
still awake. There was nothing for it but to keep playing. And so he played the
violin. He played and played and played. Eventually, the second lion slept . . .’
(Derek (28) Personal Stories (Cork))
Examples 5.23(b) and (c) illustrate another perfective marker that is widely
used: COMPLETION (Leeson 1996). Example 5.24(b) situates the use of
COMPLETION in the context of a joke about a violinist who nds himself
in a lion’s enclosure with three lions. In this example we see that he success-
fully lulls the rst two lions to sleep with his music (with COMPLETION
used to signify the successful end result).2 COMPLETION thus functions as
a marker of resultatives, marking the successful outcome of a process. This is
in line with Matthews’s description:
It may signal the completion of an action which happened over time as
in building a house. It may signal success as in having made a new date
or got a new girlfriend. It may mark a change of state as in the repair of
a broken television. (1996a: 158, original emphasis)
COMPLETION can precede the verb as in Example 5.25(a) and (b), or
come before a noun as in (c) and (d).
Example 5.25
(a) HOUSE COMPLETION BUILD
‘The house has been built’
(b) t.v. BROKE COMPLETION REPAIR
‘The broken TV has been repaired’
(c) COMPLETION DATE
‘I got a date’
(d) COMPLETION GIRLFRIEND
‘I got a girlfriend’
(Leeson 1996: 73–5; Matthews 1996a: 158)
5.7 Classier predicates
The term ‘classier’ is often used in relation to a set of handshapes (some-
times with movement components) that provide information about motion,
location, handling and the visual-geometric description of entities in a signed
language. This kind of verbal construction has been identied in more than
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 108 10/04/2012 11:00

Inectional and Derivational Morphology 109
thirty signed languages (Schembri 2000, 2003). These predicates can be cat-
egorised according to morphosyntactic criteria and we outline the range of
so-called ‘classiers’ that have been identied for ISL below. Schembri (2000)
notes that the handshape parameter, which is considered to be the carrier of
meaning in these constructions, has typically been described as a ‘classier’
morpheme. This is due to the fact that the handshape that is used in these
constructions varies depending on the salient characteristics of the referent:
for example, the size and shape of the referent can inuence the choice of
handshape that is used. Example 5.26 provides a sample of some of the kinds
of classier handshapes that can arise in ISL.
Example 5.26
The use of the term ‘classier’ was rst introduced by American Sign
Language researchers, including Frishberg (1975), Kegl and Wilbur (1976)
and Supalla (1978). Following Allan (1977), they drew comparisons between
the constructions they found in ASL and the classicatory morphemes in
verb systems in Athabaskan languages like Navajo. While Allan established
a typology of classiers that grouped these morphemes into four categories –
(a) extent, size and shape specified (brick) (b) flat-surface, extent and shape specified
Annie (26) Personal Stories (Wexford) (cooker hood)
(c) long-thin-entity (hosepipe, pipe extended) (d) handle-entity (motorbike)
Fiona (36) Personal Stories (Wexford) Helen (27) Personal Stories (Wexford)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 109 10/04/2012 11:00

110 Irish Sign Language
(1) numeral classiers, (2) concordial classiers, (3) predicate classiers and
(4) intra-locative classiers – it is the third group, predicate classiers, that
have been related to constructions in signed languages. Predicate classiers
are morphemes associated with verbs that allow speakers to classify the sub-
jects or objects according to certain semantic features, typically the shape,
number or distribution of the entities concerned (Aikhenvald 2000).
Applying this notion to ISL, McDonnell (1996) draws on the work of
Mary Brennan (1992) who identies six categories of classier handshapes:
(1) semantic, (2) size and shape, (3) tracing size and shape, (4) instrumental,
(5) handling and (6) touch. However, McDonnell incorporates these into
four broader categories of classier predicates as follows:
1. Whole entity-CL stems: includes discussion of hand congurations that
refer to semantic, size and shape, and instrumental categories.
2. Extension-CL stems: includes reference to tracing size and shape
congurations.
3. Handle entity-CL stems: includes reference to handling and touch
categories.
4. Body-CL stems: where the signer’s body functions in a way that is similar
to the way that handshape functions in certain two-handed congurations.
5.7.1 Whole entity-CL stems
In these classier stems, the hand conguration typically represents a whole
entity. McDonnell argues that in ISL, many whole entity CL-stems occur
in constructions where the whole entity-CL combines the semantic roles of
actor and theme. Several subcategories of whole entity-CLs have been identi-
ed: a semantic-CL stem refers to an entity in terms of its semantic features
(for example, + animate). A size and shape-CL stem refers to an entity in
terms of its shape (for example, rectangular) or in terms of an entity’s dimen-
sions (for example, ‘two-dimensional object’). McDonnell proposes that
these stems can combine with the same types of movements in ISL, namely
MOVE, BE-LOCATED and EXIST.
Example 5.27 illustrates a semantic-CL stem in an ISL narrative: the
handshape referred to by McDonnell as the ‘multiple entity-CL handshape’.
This is identiable as the ‘5-hand/s’, which in formational terms means that
the signer’s ngers are open and spread. Typically, the multiple entity-CL-
handshape represents entities as members of large groups, for example a large
number of participants in an event or a shoal of sh. In this example, the mul-
tiple entity-CL listed here as ‘CL-5+open’ represents a large number of Deaf
people travelling from the UK to Ireland to attend a Deaf youth camp. This
is an important use of a classier to quantify, as mentioned earlier.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 110 10/04/2012 11:00

Inectional and Derivational Morphology 111
Example 5.27
5.7.2 Extension-CL stems
McDonnell’s extension-CL stems are like those described by Brennan (1992)
for BSL as ‘tracing size and shape classiers’. McDonnell proposes treat-
ing this set of hand congurations as a separate category because the hand
congurations found in these stems in ISL trace rather than represent the
entities that they refer to. Extension-CL stems combine only with EXTENT
movements. Example 5.28 below oers an example of an extension-CL stem
in ISL, which we have glossed as ‘trace-arc’. Here, the signer traces the extent
of the shop sign, then tells us what is written on the sign.
Example 5.28
. . . SHOP TITLE g. 2/h CL.C. (trace-arc) (thumb and forefingers) g.i.f.t.s.CL.C.
(trace-arc)
‘. . . was a shop which had a big arched doorway with the word “gifts”
emblazoned on it’
(Informant H: narrative)
(Leeson 2001: 73)
Another example, this time from the SOI corpus, involves the signer describ-
ing the extent of the storage box to the rear of her motorbike. She traces the
outline of the box, illustrated in Example 5.29.
CL:5+sr+hi+trace-path+c
‘. . . They all came over (from the UK to Ireland)’
Sean (13) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 111 10/04/2012 11:00

112 Irish Sign Language
Example 5.29
5.7.3 Handle entity-CL stems
Handle entity-CL stems have handshapes that typically denote the con-
guration of the hand as it moves, touches or uses an object or part of an
object rather than denoting the object itself as a whole. These stems typically
imply an animate agent, that is the signer him- or herself or another agent
who is indicated through a reference shift. McDonnell notes that such stems
typically occur in transitive constructions where the hand conguration
represents the direct object argument. Handle entity-CL stems combine with
MOVE, BE-LOCATED and EXIST movements. Example 5.30 oers an
example of a handle entity-CL in ISL.
Example 5.30
‘blah-blah’
. . . c.+CL.C.+move-to-mouth . . .
‘. . . I can use the radio . . .’
(Informant T: interview, Hands On footage)
(Leeson 2001: 48)
In this example, the signer is describing the safety options available to Deaf
sailors. One option that he describes includes using a radio to transmit a
pre-recorded message calling for help. The segment above includes use of a
CL-C-handshape to represent the position of the hand in handling a typical
hand-held radio. As discussed above, use of handle entity-CL stems indicate
an animate actor. In this case the animate actor is the signer.
Another illustration, this time from the SOI corpus is in Example 5.31.
CL:ISL-L trace-outline ‘box’
Fiona (36) Personal Stories (Waterford)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 112 10/04/2012 11:00

Inectional and Derivational Morphology 113
Example 5.31
In Example 5.31 we see the signer recounting a story about a time when she
brought a kitten into her classroom, and hid it in her desk. As the teacher was
teaching, the kitten started to meow. At this point in the story, the signer has
taken on the role of the teacher in her classroom, stick in hand, pointing to the
blackboard. At this juncture, she hears something and pauses. Of interest to
us here is the fact that the signer is using an ISL-T-handshape to represent a
whole entity, the stick. The signer’s handshape choice implies both an animate
agent who handles the entity that we conceive of as being a stick as well as the
stick itself, and this interpretation is something we return to in later chapters.
Interestingly a number of stems take the same surface forms across the
whole-entity-CL and the handle entity-CL distinction. McDonnell (1996)
gives an example of the whole entity-CL stem, ‘three-dimensional entity-
CL’, which is used in a sentence meaning There was a bun on the table, while
a handle entity-CL stem, ‘handle three-dimensional entity-CL’, is used in a
sentence meaning I put a bun on the table. McDonnell states that these stems
both share the same hand conguration and movement types. Other stems
such as ‘cylindrical entity-CL’ and ‘handle cylindrical entity-CL’ also exhibit
this shared pattern.
5.7.4 Body-CL stems
ISL has a category of stems where the signer’s body functions in a way that
is similar to the way that handshape functions in certain two-handed con-
gurations. Here body-CL stems play a signicant role in backgrounded con-
structions. While body-CL stems might perhaps be considered to t into the
category of whole entity-CL stems, the contexts where they are used suggest
CL:ISL-T (tap-stick-on-blackboard)
(handle-think-long-object)
‘The teacher tapped her stick on the black-
board, then hestitated;
Marion (08) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 113 10/04/2012 11:00

114 Irish Sign Language
that a separate category of body-CL stems should be considered for ISL.
Typically, the body classier involves the body of the signer and is used as an
independent articulator to refer to a single animate entity, which is typically
an individual. This type of classier is typically used in ISL to refer to the
actual body of the animate entity as opposed to the semantic category of the
shape of the entity itself. Several constraints on operation have been identied:
· A body classier can only be used when the referent is animate (or where
an inanimate object has assumed animacy as a result of anthropomor-
phism, for example where a tree has human-like feelings and can walk or
(as in the LSF example outlined in Sallandre (2007),3 an apple experiences
fear as the chef’s knife moves towards its ‘head’).
· Where a body classier is part of the verb complex, it can only refer to one
object referent at a time.
· Body-CLs can combine with morphemes that denote manner of locomo-
tion, but they cannot combine with morphemes that denote the path of
motion.
· Body-CLs do not take locative agreement markers.
In ISL, classier predicates that involve a dominant and subordinate articu-
lator (that is, non-dominant hand) occur frequently. Typically, such construc-
tions see the non-dominant hand functioning as a backgrounded element with
respect to the action of the dominant hand, as seen in Example 5.32.
Example 5.32
PROBLEM Solid-round-entity-CL+MOVE-imit: sunrise
Flat-surface-entity-CL+EXIST-----------------
SOON MORNING
‘There’s a snag. The sun is beginning to rise and soon it will be morning’
(McDonnell 1996: 224, Example 6.111)
In Example 5.33 we see that the signer’s body can also function as a subordi-
nate articulator in relation to the action of the dominant articulator.
Example 5.33
Index-CL+fr+MOVE+contact-c
Body-CL+EXIST+chest-------
‘(Someone) bumped into me’
(McDonnell 1996: 225, Example 6.113)
Finally, several body-CL stems, such as PERSON-BUMP-INTO-ME, as
with many other classier predicate forms, have become lexicalised. As a
result, the separate elements that make up the sign no longer have separate sig-
nicance in relation to the features of the nominal that they refer to.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 114 10/04/2012 11:00

Inectional and Derivational Morphology 115
We have continued the traditional use of the term ‘classier’ here for the
most part because the term has entered into mainstream discourse about the
description of this type of complex predicate, and because it has been widely
used to refer to this particular category of verbs (Frishberg 1975; Kegl and
Wilbur 1976; McDonnell 1996; Schembri 2003; Supalla 1978). However, it is
important to note that other researchers have argued against this position,
for example arguing that these signed language forms are not classiers in
the sense put forward by Allan (Engberg-Pedersen (1993)), while others have
queried the appropriateness of using the term ‘classier’ itself to denote these
constructions (Brennan 1986; Deuchar 1987; Schembri 2003; Sutton-Spence
and Woll 1999). For example, Schick (1990) notes that some of the construc-
tions typically analysed as being verbal classiers could perhaps be more
appropriately analysed as adjectival in nature. Another argument is that this
term implies that the handshape performs a classication function in these
structures, while in fact it functions in a selectional rather than classifying
way, with handshape selecting certain characteristics of entities, for example
size and shape, or how the entity is handled, while imposing selectional
restrictions on other characteristics. Schembri (2003) often refers to this
category simply as complex predicates (CPs) to overcome these problems,
rejecting the alternative term ‘polymorphemic’ because of problems in justi-
fying the morphemic status of the signs’ elements.
5.8 Compounds
Compounds are words that are made up of two or more free morphemes
which can themselves function as separate words within the language.
The meaning of the resulting form may not be directly predictable from
the component parts. Generally speaking, we can identify several kinds of
compound signs in ISL, including sequential compounds and loan transla-
tions. We will also briey consider what have been called ‘simultaneous
compounds’.
5.8.1 Features of ISL compounds
Sequential compounding combines signs in what we can term ‘linear space’:
signs are articulated one after the other, but in such a way as to be identi-
able as dierent signs from the component parts. What is important is that
compound formation involves free morphemes: bound morphemes are not
fundamental building blocks for compounds. In many cases the meaning of
the compound is distinct from the meaning of a phrase with the same words.
For example, in ISL, signers know that the sign OLD-MOTHER means
grandmother, not a mother who is old, just as speakers of English know that
a greenhouse is not a house that is green in colour.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 115 10/04/2012 11:00

116 Irish Sign Language
A number of principles have been identied for compound formation
across a range of signed languages, including, for example, that the sign
to be articulated highest in signing space will be signed rst; that there will
be a reduction or omission of movement in the rst part of the compound
sign; and that articulatory emphasis is usually on the second part of the sign
(Brennan et al. 1984). We also nd that when the second part of the sign uses
a non-dominant hand as a base, this hand nds its position during the period
of production of the rst part of the compound sign. These are general prin-
ciples, though there are exceptions. Before we consider those, we can look
at how these principles apply to the formation of sequential compounds in
ISL. As compound signs are made up of two free morphemes, and as each
of these is typically articulated at a dierent point in signing space, we can
say that compound signs usually involve a location change and sometimes a
change of handshape (for example, ISL THINK-EXTRA ‘exaggerate’). The
transition process between the elements in the compound is smoother than
the usual transition between two separate signs; the morphemes that make up
a compound transition into each other. The duration of the compound sign
also diers from the production of the component morphemes individually:
compound signs tend to have similar productive duration time to a simple
sign rather than the duration period of two separate signs, for example in
Example 5.34 we see POLICE-HOUSE ‘police-station’ rather than the
sequence POLICE, HOUSE ‘police’, ‘house’.
Example 5.34
Note that in this example the rst element of the compound has a place of
articulation on the arm, and is a one-handed sign, while the second compo-
nent is a two-handed sign, articulated in neutral signing space. However,
the citation forms of compounds are subject in context to local phonetic
processes like assimilation. For example, if we consider Helen’s story, we
can identify several ways in which the articulation of the compound SICK-
POLICE-HOUSE ‘police station’
Nicholas (22) Personal Stories (Wexford)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 116 10/04/2012 11:00

Inectional and Derivational Morphology 117
HOUSE (‘hospital’) diers from citation form. Helen discusses how she
injured herself in a childhood accident and had to go to hospital. She signs
GO-OFF SICK-HOUSE, and the fact that SICK-HOUSE is articulated with
a higher onset than in citation form is a result of the fact that the oset of
the previous sign, GO-OFF, has a fairly high oset point, that is a process of
assimilation occurs.
Example 5.35
In Example 5.35, we see an atypical articulation of SICK: normally SICK
is articulated with the non-dominant hand taking a at-5-handshape, palm
facing down, as in Example 5.36.
Example 5.36
However in Example 5.35 Helen is anticipating the handshape and location
that the non-dominant hand will take for the articulation of HOUSE, though
what is interesting is that here, the non-dominant hand never quite opens to
the expected at-5-handshape, to mirror that of the dominant hand, as was
the case in Example 5.33. Given this, the expected conformity with the sym-
metry constraint does not occur.
SICK-HOUSE ‘hospital’
Helen (27) Personal Stories (Wexford)
Citation form of SICK
Eilish (10) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 117 10/04/2012 11:00

118 Irish Sign Language
Movement may also be reduced in compounds: when the component
signs are produced independently, movement is generally away from the
signer, but where they are the initial component of a compound, this move-
ment is usually greatly reduced or completely omitted. In the example of
ISL POLICE-HOUSE, the usual repeated movement in POLICE is lost,
as the dominant hand moves instead towards the non-dominant hand. The
movement of HOUSE is also reduced: while the citation form is articulated
with a repetition of the sign, in the compound, the repeated movement is
lost, though in many sequential compounds, the second element is given
additional emphasis. This often involves an increase in muscle tension or a
longer nal hold than is normal. Indeed, Klima and Bellugi (1979) found that
in ASL compounds, repetition in the nal component of a compound sign is
often omitted where in regular production repetition would be usual. This
is reported as sometimes occurring in BSL signs too, but more often, repeti-
tion is retained but the sign is held for longer in space. In ISL, the evidence
seems to suggest that repetition at the end of compounds is omitted, as in
POLICE-HOUSE and SICK-HOUSE above, and while the nal component
may be held for longer in space, this may be dependent on where the com-
pound occurs in a clause. Another example of this process is BLESS-HOUSE
‘church’ where the BLESS component has been drastically reduced.
5.8.2 Constraints on compound formation
A range of articulatory constraints have been found to apply to sequen-
tial compounds in signed languages. Wallin (1983) reports that in genuine
compounds in Swedish Sign Language, the rst sign always has a single
articulator (that is, is a one-handed sign). The only exception he found was
PROMISE-GIVE ‘permit’, which has a double articulator. Bergman (1977)
describes an articulator as ‘the hand involved in performing the movement’
and a double articulator as ‘when two hands having the same handshape are
used in the movement’, which Battison (1978) refers to as the symmetry con-
straint. In contrast to Wallin’s ndings, ISL has compounds that have both
one- and two-handed signs as the rst morpheme. Some ISL compounds that
have one-handed signs as the rst morpheme are given in Example 5.37(a),
while some that have two-handed morphemes as the rst component are
given in Example 5.37(b).
Example 5.37
(a) BOY-DAY ‘day-boy, day-pupil’, SEE-EXAMINE ‘check’, GREEN-AREA ‘field’,
CANDLE-LIGHT ‘light’
(b) MOTHER-FATHER ‘parents’, SICK-HOUSE ‘hospital’, SICK-SPREAD
‘epidemic’, MARK-MIND ‘affected’
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 118 10/04/2012 11:00

Inectional and Derivational Morphology 119
It is also been claimed that the component sign that is articulated at the highest
point in signing space is articulated rst (Brennan et al. 1984). In ISL, if the
rst element in a compound is one-handed, it will typically be articulated at
a higher plane than the second morpheme. We see this in BOY-DAY ‘day-
boy, day-pupil’, SEE-EXAMINE ‘check’ and GREEN-AREA ‘eld’ but not
in CANDLE-LIGHT ‘light’, where the iconicity associated with the second
component demands an overhead location for articulation, while CANDLE
is articled at lip level. If the ISL compound is made up of two two-handed
morphemes, there is a strong likelihood that both will be articulated in neutral
space, as all of the examples we mention below. Where two two-handed mor-
phemes combine to create a compound in ISL, it is more typical for both mor-
phemes to conform to the symmetry constraint. This is evident in compounds
like MOTHER-FATHER ‘parents’, TRAIN-HOUSE ‘train station’, SIT-
ROOM ‘sitting room’ and HOME-WORK ‘homework’. Where a compound
comprises two two-handed morphemes and one upholds the dominance
constraint and the other the symmetry constraint, the typical formation is
that the rst element will uphold the dominance constraint and the compound
nal element will be symmetrical. Examples that illustrate this include SICK-
HOUSE ‘hospital’, SICK-SPREAD ‘epidemic’, WEEK-END ‘week-end’ and
BLACK-BOARD ‘blackboard’. We also nd that deletion of a repeated
movement in the nal component of a compound may occur, but this does not
seem obligatory. It may even be the case that in citation form, signers may tend
towards a morpheme nal hold, though this may dier in extended discourse.
We could also add that in some instances, ISL compounds are accompa-
nied by mouthings which reect the donor morphemes, for example ‘mark-
mind’ and ‘boy-day’, but in many instances, the English word associated with
the meaning of the compound is mouthed, perhaps a reection of the bilin-
gual reality of Deaf people’s lives. For some signers, probably older signers
(but not those from the pre-oral education era), genuine compounds are
accompanied by mouthings of the donor morphemes or one element thereof.
For example, some signers would mouth ‘mother-father’ while others mouth
‘parents’. It is also important to note that there is diachronic and other varia-
tion in the way some compounds are articulated and mouthed, for example it
seems that older signers use TRAIN-HOUSE, while other (perhaps younger)
signers sign TRAIN-STATION, and while some signers sign FOOD-
EVENING ‘supper’, others sign FOOD-NIGHT and mouth ‘supper’ or just
‘eat’.4 This may be indicative of a changing functionality for mouthing in ISL
(Militzer 2010) as well as being directly related to educational policies and
their impact on ISL usage, as outlined earlier in this volume.
As signs with two or more elements are more complex than signs with
one element, it is generally reported that compounds have an upper limit of
two component parts. This is known as the ‘duality constraint’ (Kyle and
Woll 1985: 118). The eect of the duality constraint includes the movement
reductions we talked about earlier. However, there are exceptions to this
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 119 10/04/2012 11:00

120 Irish Sign Language
rule in ISL and we can nd examples with up to three component parts, for
example BLUE-MARK-BE-LOCATED-ON-ARM ‘bruise (on arm)’ or
FALSE-INFORMATION-SPREAD ‘propaganda’ (Ó Baoill and Matthews
2000: 243–4).
Figure 5.2 Features of ISL compounds
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 120 10/04/2012 11:00

Inectional and Derivational Morphology 121
The general principle for ISL signs is that the rst component in a com-
pound begins higher up in signing space than the second component, for
example BOY-DAY ‘day-pupil’, where BOY is articulated at the chin and
DAY is articulated in neutral signing space. We saw this principle illustrated
in Example 5.32. In Figure 5.2, we see a sample of ISL compounds together
with some of the features we have discussed.
There are also compound signs in ISL that have been inuenced by
spoken language compounds. When vocabulary is borrowed into another
language like this, the process is referred to as loan-translation. Wallin (1983)
reports that in Swedish Sign Language loan-translation compounds are very
common. For example, the Swedish sjukhus ‘sick-house, hospital’ is reected
in the Swedish Sign Language sign SJUK-HUS. Thus, we often see that ele-
ments of one language are borrowed into another language and adapted pho-
nologically to secure meaning in another language. In Figure 5.3, we some
examples where ISL has borrowed from English and which can be considered
as loan translations, together with their basic features.
Given the role of simultaneity in signed languages, it is no surprise that
a process of simultaneous compounding has been posited (Brennan 1990,
1992). This occurs when two separate free morphemes are combined and
produced simultaneously. Each morpheme is articulated on a separate
hand at the same time. For example, in ISL we use the compound sign
TELEPHONE-TYPE to mean ‘minicom’. However, as Brennan (1992)
points out, many of the signs that have traditionally been considered as
simultaneous compounds are created using classier handshapes, the bound
morphemes discussed earlier in this chapter. Thus it is arguable that they do
not fall within the denitional criteria for compounding. In ISL, the range
of signs that might be considered candidates for simultaneous compounds
include signs that have become lexicalised, like PARACHUTE-JUMP and
Figure 5.3 Loan translation or ‘calque’ compounds in ISL
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 121 10/04/2012 11:00

122 Irish Sign Language
JUMP-UP-AND-DOWN. As Brennan notes, the issue in deciding whether
these are compounds or blends is the extent to which their components can
be identied as free morphemes. We will consider this issue in our discussion
of the ISL lexicon in the next chapter.
5.9 Manner
In this section we look briey at ways in which the articulation of a sign,
such as a verb or adjective, may be modulated to convey information about
manner, intensity and other qualities, such as size. A motion verb, for
example, may be articulated to give information about the path of move-
ment, as in Example 5.38, where the trajectory of the moving gure, to use
Talmy’s (1985) term, is represented as part of the sign.
Example 5.38
Similarly, action verbs, such as WALK or RUN, maybe modulated away
from the citation form to give information about speed, as in Example 5.39.
Example 5.39
CL:B+f+trace-non-linear-path
Kevin (17) Personal Stories (Dublin)
(a) WALK (b) WANDER-ROUND-BY-FOOT
Bernadette (02) Personal Stories (Dublin) KEVIN (17) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 122 10/04/2012 11:00

Inectional and Derivational Morphology 123
Non-manual features play an important role in this type of adverbial modi-
cation. One particular type of manner inection conveyed by a non-manual
features occurs in Example 5.18 earlier where the morphemes glossed as ‘mm’
provides the adverbial information that the action occurred ‘in the normal
way’ or ‘normally’ (Baker-Shenk and Cokely 1980; Ó Baoill and Matthews
2000). A similar non-manual morpheme is reported for ASL (Liddell 1980)
and BSL (Sutton-Spence and Woll 1999). This non-manual morpheme co-
occurs with the manual signs illustrated in Example 5.39(a) and (b).
In a similar way adjectives may be modulated to give information about the
scale of the relevant quality. Thus an adjective like BIG may be articulated to
convey ‘very big’, ‘extremely big’, as in Example 5.40.
Example 5.40
We note also that temporary states expressed by verbs like HUNGRY,
TIRED, ANGRY, etc. can also be modied. Movement of the verb is length-
ened, as in the examples discussed above, to mean ‘very hungry’, ‘very tired’
and ‘very angry’. Clearly these manner modications are conceptually related
to the aspectual distinctions described in the last section, if we view aspect as
describing the way in which a process or event unfolds through time.
5.10 Summary
In this chapter we have discussed the morphology of ISL, giving examples of
how word shapes are altered by morphological processes to signal the functions
of grammatical categories like agreement, aspect and number. We have also
seen how ISL users create new signs through compound formation, and some-
thing of the rules and principles that govern this. We have also looked at the
system of classiers, where aspects of the form or movement norms of an entity
(including aspects of how an entity is handled) are encoded in predicates. This
system too is capable of innovation, for example one ISL sign for NOTHING,
articulated in neutral space, can be relocated to the forehead to mean KNOW-
(a) BIG (citation) (b) BIG-BALL (c) VERY-BIG-WINDOW
Fergus (06) Personal Stories Maria (Dublin) Frog Story Leanne (14) Personal Stories
(Dublin) (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 123 10/04/2012 11:00

124 Irish Sign Language
NOTHING or located on the palm of each hand to mean KNOW-NO-SIGN.
In the next chapter we will look at the lexicon in further detail, discussing what
have been called the productive and the established lexicons of ISL.
Notes
1. We discuss the relationship between semantic roles like actor and gram-
matical roles like subject in Chapter 7.
2. For interested readers, here is the end of the joke: the third lion happens
to be deaf, and the violin music doesn’t lull him to sleep. So he eats the
violinist.
3. For discussion of analysis of such structures in LSF that draw on the work
of Christian Cuxac, the reader is referred to Sallandre (2007) and Risler
(2007).
4. Carmel Grehan, personal communication, September 2010.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 124 10/04/2012 11:00

6 The ISL Lexicon
6.1 Introduction
In Chapter 5, we outlined aspects of the morphological system in ISL. We
considered what constitutes a word in ISL and considered how plurals are
marked and how compounds are formed, amongst other things. This chapter
builds on that discussion, focusing on the morphology of the lexicon. We
dierentiate between the established lexicon, namely those signs that have
a xed citation form and are typically cited in dictionaries of ISL, and the
productive lexicon, which makes use of the productive relationship between
a narrow set of handshapes that can operate in signing space to create new,
dynamic descriptions of entities. In Chapter 5, we discussed these in section
5.5 under the heading of classier predicates and noted that they have also
been referred to as size and shape speciers (Brennan 1992).
In this chapter we also investigate the role of borrowing from English and
other languages. We discuss the relationship of the productive lexicon to
aspects of iconicity and gesture before turning to a discussion of the develop-
ment of dictionaries of signed languages. We will also look at the lexicon in
terms of ‘cognitive iconicity’ (Wilcox 2004a), which adopts a cognitive linguis-
tics framework to analysing, among other things, the lexical level of signed
languages, and re-examines the notions of arbitrariness and iconicity, positing
that the two are not necessarily wholly independent notions but can co-exist,
and that both represent a deeper, underlying cognitive basis for language.
6.2 The ISL lexicon
We have already seen that signs are created with manual and non-manual
morphemes. A useful distinction is one that Brennan (1992) suggested for
British Sign Language: between the established and the productive lexicon.
Some signs in the lexicon are xed or ‘established’, that is they have a clearly
identiable citation form, and often they have an established English lan-
guage equivalent. Typical examples include signs for MOTHER, FATHER,
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 125 10/04/2012 11:00

126 Irish Sign Language
HOUSE, TREE and JOB. Other signs are constructed using conventional
strategies to t contextual needs. These strategies form the productive lexicon.
For example, in the last chapter, in Example 5.28, we saw how a signer used
a two-handed CL-C-handshape to trace the outline of the arched entrance to
a gift shop at the zoo. He then signed ‘gift’, locating the ngerspelling for the
word along the crest of the arc. Together, this meant that there ‘was a shop
which had a big arched doorway with the word “gifts” emblazoned on it’
(Informant H: narrative, Leeson 2001: 73). The combination includes the cre-
ation of a bespoke lexical item, created by the signer ‘online’, as a ‘doorway’
for the current context. Though there are iconic elements to this sign, it is pro-
duced from conventionalised elements, for example the classier handshape,
in a rule-governed way. In general, while some signs are arbitrary in nature,
with no direct relationship to their referent discernible from their form, other
signs are more highly iconic – that is, there is a relationship that holds between
the form of the sign and its referent in the real world. For example, the sign for
DRINK takes a CL-C-handshape, which at the same time tells us something
about the size and shape of the referent and about how it is handled. The
ISL sign for HOUSE takes two at-B-handshapes, reecting the structure
of an A-frame roof. Iconicity is not always so easily discernible. Some of the
iconic relationships we nd underpinning the ISL lexicon are more complex in
nature. For example, one ISL sign for SCHOOL sees the non-dominant hand
taking a at-B-handshape, representing a at entity, interpretable as a page,
while the dominant hand takes an S-handshape and moves from the non-
dominant hand to forehead. This movement suggests movement of knowledge
from the page to the person’s head. As we shall see, some of the complexity
can be accounted for when we look at the role of metaphor in the formation of
the lexicon. We shall see that metaphor and metonymy, along with gesture and
initialised handshapes can combine. This can lead to ISL signs being iconic
and, at the same time, demonstrating some degree of inuence from English
as a result of language contact. When we talk about language contact and ISL,
we should also bear in mind that other signed languages, historically French
Sign Language, British Sign Language and to a lesser extent, American Sign
Language, have impacted signicantly on the language.
Figure 6.1 provides a schematic overview of the ISL lexicon, with the
broken lines suggesting possible relationships at the interface between pro-
ductive and established elements.
The established lexicon of ISL includes a range of arbitrary and iconic
signs, including signs that have been inuenced by English, and by British
and French Sign Language. More recently there is evidence of inuence from
American Sign Language. Some of the iconic signs may have gestural roots,
many of which appear as metonymic forms, and some of which co-occur
with mouth gestures, which have become conventionally associated with
particular lexical items, specically items that are gender-specic in nature.
In the productive lexicon, we nd that gesture also plays a role as a substrate
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 126 10/04/2012 11:00

The ISL Lexicon 127
for many productive elements, but that these elements have been convention-
alised, giving them linguistic status. The role of size and shape speciers, also
known as classier handshapes, is signicant in this category too.
Given this, it is important to bear in mind that the established and produc-
tive components are not wholly separate entities, but, as indicated in Figure
6.1 above, that there are dynamic processes that operate to link them. With
this in mind, we begin by taking a closer look at the established lexicon.
6.3 The established lexicon
In Chapter 3 we discussed the origins of contemporary ISL and noted that both
British Sign Language and French Sign Language have inuenced the lexicon
of Irish Sign Language. Much of what has been documented regarding early
forms of contemporary ISL relates to English-based descriptions of signs for
English words, and this bias has tended to inuence what is seen as a word in
ISL. As we have shown in Figure 6.1, this is not an accurate reading of the situ-
ation, as the lexicon of ISL has had many inuences, and as a living language,
it continues to change over time, drawing on a range of processes to promote
the evolution of the lexicon. Given the stereotyped traditional view of the sign,
however, we begin by considering signs that have been inuenced by English.
6.3.1 English-inuenced signs
English-inuenced signs include the following range of items: lexical borrow-
ings, initialised signs, ngersigns, mouthed elements and cued speech inu-
enced items. Lexical borrowings include elements that were created as part
Figure 6.1 Overview of the ISL lexicon
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 127 10/04/2012 11:00

128 Irish Sign Language
of the move to map English to a signed form via the system known locally
as manually coded English or signed English. McDonnell (1997) notes that
many of the signs used in manually coded English in Ireland were in fact bor-
rowed from ISL, some of which were in turn borrowed from LSF and BSL.
Others, though, were invented for words in English which had no pre-existing
equivalent in ISL. Typically, the hand conguration for such a sign indicates
its relationship to the English manual alphabet (ibid.). McDonnell includes
initialised signs such as DEFEND, GUARD, FOSTER and PROTECT as
illustrative of this process.
Signs which are initialised typically incorporate the rst letter of the
English word – as in MOTHER, FATHER, POLICE, TROUBLE, THINK,
IDEA, INTERPRETER – and may have been created by educationalists
as part of the move towards manually coded English. It is also probable
that several such signs had a non-initialised form and that initialisation was
imposed on them. Indeed, it seems that several signs are undergoing a process
of de-initialisation, perhaps in part inuenced by increased awareness among
the Irish Deaf community of ISL as a language in its own right, with a con-
current move away from signs seen as having an overt English inuence. An
example is PROCESS, which, in citation form, takes an ISL-P-handshape,
which many Deaf people sign with a B-handshape, thus creating a non-
initialised form.
Many initialised signs seem at rst glance to be wholly arbitrary in nature,
but on closer examination, we nd that they are typically grouped so that
cognate concepts are aligned to a set of locations, for example the non-
dominant hand for ‘trouble’ (POLICE, PRISON, ARREST, TROUBLE,
PUNISH, ANNOY, PROBLEM); the head for literal associations with the
head area and for issues of cognition (HEAD, BRAIN, COGNITION, IDEA,
THINK, UNDERSTAND, KNOW, INTELLIGENT, IGNORANT,
STUPID, etc.); and the heart for issues of emotion and literal associations
with that aspect of the body (HEART, LOVE, LIKE, etc.). Thus there is a
metaphoric relationship that holds between salient concepts and the concep-
tual associations aligned to physical locations on the body.
Other initialised signs have a reduced iconic element: for example, the male
variety for the signs MONDAY–THURSDAY are initialised for days of the
week on a list-buoy, where each nger aligns with the rst, second, third and
fourth days:
Example 6.1
MONDAY – M-handshape travelling along the index finger of the non-dominant
hand
TUESDAY – T-handshape travelling along the middle finger of the non-dominant
hand
WEDNESDAY – W-handshape travelling along the ring finger of the non-
dominant hand
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 128 10/04/2012 11:00

The ISL Lexicon 129
THURSDAY – T-handshape travelling along the pinky finger of the non-dominant
hand
Related to initialised signs are signs that started out as ngerspelled items
but which, as a result of phonological deletion and grammaticalisation proc-
esses, are now lexicalised. These are typically place names, which may have
originally been ngerspelled in full but over time, phonological deletion rules
have applied and today a reduced number of letters are articulated, and this,
together with an identiable movement pattern, suggest that the formerly
ngerspelled items have lexicalised to a greater or lesser degree. Examples
include C-O-R-K (‘Cork’), T-I-P-P (‘Tipperary’), L-K (‘Limerick’) and
G-W-Y (‘Galway’). We know that these are psychologically treated as signs
rather than as items that are spelled out as deaf children have been known to
ask adults how to spell the proper noun they have just signed. These forms are
typically inuenced by English orthography. This aligns to ndings on per-
severation and anticipatory coarticulation aects at the level of phonology:
Fingerspelling is more than a sequence of canonical handshape– alphabet
letter correspondence, since the articulatory movements of segments
within the ngerspelled word inuence each other. Perseverative and
anticipatory coarticulation aects the actual shaping of ngerspelled
words, creating a uid transition between letters that is prosodic and
complex. (Wilcox et al. 2003: 140)
A key element in the creation of the range of established signs we have
discussed thus far is mouthing, a phenomenon we discussed in some detail
in Chapter 4, where we noted that mouthings may be used lexically, gram-
matically, prosodically, and for discourse and stylistic reasons (following
Boyes Braem (2001)). We noted that preliminary analysis of the Signs of
Ireland corpus reveals very marked gender dierences with regard to the use
of mouthings, with women consistently making greater use of English inu-
enced mouthings than their male counterparts. In Chapter 4, we reported
that Militzer found that for female signers aged 18–35, 75 per cent of lexical
items were accompanied by mouthings, while the gure for men in this age
group was 52 per cent. In the 40–55-year age group, 60 per cent of lexical
items articulated by women co-occurred with mouthings, and for men, the
gure was 39 per cent. For those aged 55 years and above, 45 per cent of
lexical items produced by women co-occurred with mouthings, while men in
this category produced mouthings in only 12 per cent of all instances.
We have seen that mouthings accompany mainly nouns, and we would
add, these are forms that are rmly based in the established lexicon category,
reinforcing the notion that the established lexicon has been inuenced heavily
by language contact (with other signed languages and with English). We also
point out that mouthings are found in the gendered signs that were generated
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 129 10/04/2012 11:00

130 Irish Sign Language
in the schools for the deaf following from the introduction of oralism in the
1940s (St Mary’s School for Deaf Girls) and the 1950s (St Joseph’s School
for Deaf Boys).
In addition to lexical content words, the proponents of manually coded
English created signs for function words like AND, OF, THEN, TO, FOR,
HIS/HER, THEY, HE/SHE, AM, IS, WERE and WAS. Again, there is a
tendency towards initialisation in these signs. Axes were created for tense
marking (for example, TALK+PAST = ‘talked’, TEACH+PAST = ‘taught’),
with regular and irregular past tense verbs being treated the same in this
system (McDonnell 1997). As we shall see in Chapters 7 and 8, many of these
forms have been incorporated into ISL usage, though their functionality may
have shifted somewhat. Other lexical borrowings from English include the
loan translation compounds that we discussed in Chapter 5.
Another subset of signs is those that have been inuenced by English pho-
netics. Oralism and the use of a system known as cued speech have impacted
on the lexicon of ISL, particularly the variety used by Deaf women. Cued
speech is a mode of communication based on the phonemes of spoken lan-
guages. It aims to provide access to the basic properties of spoken languages
through the use of vision.1 Though never widely used in Ireland, some
cohorts of graduates from St Mary’s School for Deaf Girls still use elements
which seem to have been inuenced by cued speech, introduced in the context
of speech training classes at the school. Examples include the use of the little
nger at the lips to represent k sounds and the index nger at the lips to rep-
resent sh sounds. As a result, these gestures, accompanied by mouthed ele-
ments, are used by some Deaf women as the lexical signs for SHOE, CORK,
etc. In Example 6.2, we see what might be considered the ‘standard’ form
for the ISL sign SHOE (a) and the female variant, inuenced by cued speech
(b):
Example 6.2
(a) SHOE (Citation) (b) SHOE (Cued speech influenced form (f))
Valerie (12) Personal Stories (Dublin) Marian (16) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 130 10/04/2012 11:00

The ISL Lexicon 131
6.3.2 Borrowed signs
Some of the signs with a British or French Sign Language origin include
GUINNESS (BSL-G-handshape), PROFESSIONAL (BSL-P-handshape),
MEMBER (BSL-M-handshape), LOOK/SEARCH (C-handshape, from the
French verb chercher, ‘to look’) and FRIDAY, (the ISL female variant for
FRIDAY takes via LSF a V-handshape from the French word for Friday,
vendredi). These are signs that have been borrowed into ISL in the nineteenth
century. More recently, the inuence of globalisation on signed languages
has also been felt. Since the mid twentieth century, increased travel as a
result of emigration, as well as shorter trips abroad for work, study and
leisure purposes, has led to increased engagement with users of other signed
languages in a wide range of domains. With the advent of new technologies,
particularly in the past twenty years or so, the capacity for online engagement
with foreign signed languages has increased, leading to increased potential
for borrowing. A prime example is the use of name signs for countries:
given increased participation at international meetings of organisations like
the World Federation of the Deaf and the European Union of the Deaf,
lexical gaps were lled and on occasion, pre-existing signs for countries were
replaced by the indigenous sign. Sometimes a reason for phasing out the
pre-existing signs was related to the fact that the older signs were considered
pejorative in some way (for example, the signs for CHINA and JAPAN were
originally signs associated with eye shape). More recently, signs for linguistics
terminology, like LINGUISTICS, PHONOLOGY and PHONETICS, were
borrowed from British Sign Language in the early 1990s, and then these signs
underwent some phonological changes (handshape, movement) (Leeson
2005).
6.3.3 Iconic signs
We have made reference several times in this volume to the fact that iconicity
permeates Irish Sign Language. We noted this particularly in Chapter 5 when
discussing the role of size classiers in the creation of verb predicates. We
also saw how a cognitive iconicity underpins the clustering of related verbal
concepts, for example verbs of cognition at the head and verbs of emotion
on the torso. We can take this discussion a little further here by considering
the range of iconic factors that impact on the formation of the established
lexicon in ISL.
One of the most productive aspects driving lexical creation in ISL is meta-
phor. Mary Brennan (1990, 1992) describes the role of metaphor as a prime
in the creation of the British Sign Language lexicon, and as we shall see,
these underlying principles apply equally to ISL. Cognitive linguists such as
George Lako and Mark Johnston argue that metaphor underpins human
language, giving us an insight into how we conceptualise our world (Lako
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 131 10/04/2012 11:00

132 Irish Sign Language
1987; Lako and Johnson 1980, 2003). In this view, metaphor is not a special
gure used to adorn language but an integral part of cognition. Lako and
Johnson (1980: 3) claim that ‘metaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not just
in language, but in thought and action. Our ordinary conceptual system, in
terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphoric in nature.’
They argue that metaphor, as a form of analogy, is a cognitive process that
we use to assimilate new concepts and elds of knowledge. Thus, the way we
think is, as they put it, ‘a matter of metaphor’ (ibid.). A typical example in
English is metaphor TIME IS MONEY, where time is conceptualised as a
nite and concrete commodity. English speakers use expressions like those in
listed in Example 6.3.
Example 6.3
(a) You’re wasting my time
(b) That gadget will save you hours
(c) I don’t have the time to give you
(d) How do you spend your time these days
(e) The flat tire cost me an hour
(f) I’ve invested a lot of time in her
(g) I don’t have enough time to spare for that
(h) You’re running out of time
(i) He’s living on borrowed time
(j) I lost a lot of time when I got sick
(k) Thank you for your time
(Lakoff and Johnson 1980: 7–8)
While not all of these linguistic expressions arise in ISL, several do occur, in
part, we suggest, as a result of the shared cultural reality of Irish Deaf and
hearing people. ISL signers also use the TIME IS MONEY metaphor, with
expressions like WASTE TIME (‘I’ve wasted time’), LOSE TIME (‘I’ve
lost time’), THANK-YOU TIME (‘thank you for your time’) and TIME
REDUCE / DISAPPEAR (‘the time had run out’).
Building on work like that of Lako and Johnson, Mary Brennan’s
detailed study of word formation in British Sign Language posits that meta-
phoric relationships play a signicant role in the generation of new BSL signs
(Brennan 1990, 1994). She suggests that visual metaphor is more immediately
apparent in BSL, as opposed to say English, but that this does aect the
working of the language itself. She points out that metaphors operate along
with, and in some cases through, other features of the language, and must be
taken into consideration when examining aspects of the lexicon and grammar
of signed languages. Brennan argues that arbitrariness in form-meaning
relationships at the lexical level is atypical for British Sign Language, and
instead, the language exploits highly motivated relationships. She suggests
that, while word formation operates on the basis of convention, in BSL:
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 132 10/04/2012 11:00

The ISL Lexicon 133
It is as if in developing a new word, the linguistic system operates
according to a set of default commands of the following type:
· match the selected meaning with an existing motivated morpheme or
morphemes in the language;
· combine, as required, two or more such meanings;
· choose an appropriate morphological process by means of which the
new form may be generated;
· exploit the appropriate morph-phonemic primes for the realization
of the new word. (1990: 35)
In sum then, Brennan suggests that conventional does not equate with
arbitrariness. In a similar vein, Wilcox et al. (2003) discuss the role of meton-
ymy in American Sign Language (ASL) and Catalan Sign Language (LSC).
Metonymy is an indirect referential strategy that exploits known associations
of various types. One is the part-whole relationship, as, for example, when
a nurse refers to a patient as ‘the gallstones in bed 5’, allowing the hearer to
identify the intended referent, the patient. Wilcox et al. report that in ASL
and LSC, the use of simple lexical metonymies is a common phenomenon,
whereby a prototypical physical characteristic is used to represent the whole
entity. Typical examples include the signs for BIRD, HORSE and COW in
ASL and LSC, where prototypical physical properties of these animals are
proled in their lexical form, namely the beak, the ears and horns. In ISL,
such simple metonymies are also widespread. Examples include a range of
animal signs like BIRD (beak), BULL (shape of horns), CAT (whiskers),
TIGER (stripes), LION (claw), GIRAFFE (long neck) and ELEPHANT
(trunk).
A second kind of metonymy involves the use of the hands in interaction
with some object to represent the instrument of action. Wilcox et al. give
examples from LSC and ASL like TYPEWRITER, where the hands and
ngers move in a way that represents the action of typing. In ISL, examples
include many verbs of self-grooming (BRUSH-TEETH, WASH-BODY,
PUT-ON-LIPSTICK, etc.).
A third category is that of prototypical action for activity. Wilcox et al.
report that the hands and their movement can be used to represent a proto-
typical action taken with some object, and that this may come to metonym-
ically represent the general activity. A prime example is DRIVE-CAR where
the prototypical action of holding the steering wheel is proled to mean ‘drive
a car’ rather than ‘hold the steering wheel’ or ‘steer a car’ (145). ISL is rich in
examples in this category, lending support to Wilcox et al.’s suggestion that
‘The strategy of using a prototypical interaction with a specic component to
metonymically express a whole activity is common across a range of objects
and activities’ (ibid.). ISL examples include DRINK-FROM-TEACUP (little
nger extended, holding and raising a dainty teacup to mouth), DRIVE-
CAR (moving steering wheel), DRINK-FROM-GLASS (hold cylindrical
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 133 10/04/2012 11:00

134 Irish Sign Language
object and bring to mouth), TO-VACUUM (hold long narrow cylindri-
cal object and move back and forth), TO-WASH-HAIR (action of rinsing
shampoo from hair), SQUASH (hands grip and move a squash racquet) and
TO-SMOKE-A-CIGARETTE (the movement of the hands to and from the
mouth, the inhalation of smoke by the smoker).
Wilcox et al. also note the role that metonymy plays in the creation of
some name signs, a topic we discussed for ISL in Chapter 5.2 The iconic,
gestural metonymy in which a salient characteristic of a well-known person is
extended to stand for a more general quality runs beyond a direct part-whole
relationship and metonymic chains arise. Taking CHARLIE-CHAPLIN
as an example, they note that the LSC compounds an iconic depiction of
Charlie Chaplin’s moustache and the movement of holding a cane and
moving it in circles as the referent did. They suggest that this combination
draws on a PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTIC FOR PERSON (in this case,
two characteristics) metonymy and they report that in the USA, this same
sign is used to mean ‘person moving fast’ (145).
A nal grouping of metonymically driven signs identied by Wilcox et al.
is a group they call ‘deviant behavioural eect for intensity of experience’
(146). They dene this category as arising in LSC when a ‘visible, behavioural
response to some experience stands not for the causing experience itself
but for the intensity of the causing experience’ (ibid.). An example in LSC
is CRAZY-EYES, a sign that depicts eyes wide open and moving in wild
circles to mean ‘really good’. In ISL, there is a range of signs that could be
considered to fall in this category. They include signs like TONGUE-ROLL-
OUT-OF-MOUTH to mean ‘drooling over something that is really good’,
STEAM-COME-OUT-OF-EARS to mean ‘really angry’ and EYES-POP-
OUT-OF-HEAD to mean ‘I couldn’t believe what I saw, astonishment’.
While we could not consider it as an example of a ‘deviant’ behaviour, the
use of HAIRS-STAND-UP-ON-ARM to represent the negative feeling
associated with something or someone might also be included here as a less
prototypical member of the category.
6.4 The productive lexicon
We can address the role of the productive lexicon in word formation in ISL
by continuing to look at the role of metaphor and metonymy. In Chapter 5
we introduced ISL classiers, reporting on McDonnell’s (1996) identication
of four subcategories of classier predicates, and outlined the ways in which
these elements function morphologically. Here, we will look at how these
items are both drawn on and embedded in a system where metaphor is perva-
sive and illustrate some of the ways in which classier handshapes contribute
to the development of new lexical items within this system.
Brennan (1990) outlines a range of prototypical3 metaphors that arise in
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 134 10/04/2012 11:00

The ISL Lexicon 135
BSL. Given the signicant inuence of BSL on ‘Old ISL’ and contemporary
ISL, it is perhaps no surprise that there are many points in her description
where identical or very similar examples arise in ISL. For example, Brennan
describes the DROWN, MELT, DISAPPEAR and SUCK set of metaphors
which she argues share strong links. She argues that many of these concepts
share similar semantic elements which can be expressed by the same meta-
phor or metaphor set. She points out that in BSL, these metaphors share the
same physical form allowing for the same action to be used when describing
someone or something drowning or disappearing into thin air, and notes that
these are akin to English phrases like ‘melting into the darkness’ or ‘swal-
lowed up by the mist’ (Brennan 1990: 111). The BSL DISAPPEAR metaphor
is identical in form, and it seems function, to the ISL signs DISAPPEAR and
MELT in Example 6.4. She points out that this form can also be articulated
at the head to mean MIND WENT BLANK, again, an extension also used
in ISL. Related to this, Brennan notes that a one-handed version of the sign
can be used in BSL to transmit meanings associated with ‘suck’, ‘suck in’ and
‘suck out’ where the sign is accompanied by a mouth gesture comprised of ‘lip
rounding and a sharp intake of breath at each repetition’ (ibid.). Again, these
descriptions apply to ISL in terms of both form and functionality.
Example 6.4
(a) DISAPPEAR
Rebecca (38) Personal Stories (Waterford)
(b) MELT
Mary (33) Personal Stories (Galway)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 135 10/04/2012 11:00

136 Irish Sign Language
Another set of metaphors that Brennan identies for BSL, also clearly
identiable in ISL, is the EMANATE/EMIT set. She notes that these are
most typically realised when the hand moves from a closed position to an
open position, with the resulting meaning of ‘emanating’ or ‘sending forth’
(1990: 97). Brennan notes that while a traditional semantic analysis would
not capture the relationship between the range of signs that are related via
this visual metaphor, the unifying feature that prevails is the fact that all
these signs make use of the same morpheme, and this morpheme is based on
the underlying visual metaphor, EMANATE/EMIT, that is to ow forth or
proceed from something as the source or origin, to give forth, to discharge
(after Brennan 1990: 98). She also suggests that the closed handshape is
aligned with concepts associated with the source element, while the opening
action is associated with giving forth from that source. She illustrates with
the BSL example of SUN, where the closed handshape may be inuenced by
the physical reality of the sun: the closed handshape symbolises the source of
heat, light and power, and the opening action of the palm and spreading
of the ngers is suggestive of the release of the sun’s energy, suggesting rays
of light which extend from the source.
Other BSL signs that draw on this underlying metaphor include LIGHT(S),
SEND, TRANSMIT, MAGIC, PROGRAMME (TV), SPEND, BOMB,
STRIKE, BLOOD, PERIOD, DISCHARGE, EMIT, SHOUT, FLOW,
EJACULATION, MICROWAVE and DISHWASHER (Brennan 1990:
97–8). While not all of these signs make use of the EMANATE/EMIT form
that Brennan discusses in ISL, many do. These include SUN-SHINING,
LIGHT(S), TRANSMIT, MAGIC, SPEND, BOMB, DISCHARGE,
EMIT, SHOUT, FLOW and MICROWAVE. Other signs in ISL which also
make use of the EMANATE/EMIT form include DISTRIBUTE, SPREAD,
FLASHLIGHT, HEADLAMPS, CAR-EXHAUST, STREETLIGHTS,
FLASHING DOORBELL, POLICE-SIREN, AIRPORT-LANDING-
LIGHTS, OVERHEAD-PROJECTOR and SHOWER. Brennan reports
on the creative use of underlying metaphors in BSL in the creation of new
signs which may over time become part of the established lexicon, or be
used for creative eect. EMANATE/EMIT arises creatively, for example
to illustrate FLOODS OF TEARS. This is a form also found in ISL and
is widely used. Clearly, it is a highly utilised productive morpheme. (See
Example 6.5.)
While we cannot in this section provide a comprehensive overview of
how the productive lexicon combines with metaphoric morphemes in ISL,
we note that it is a very pervasive process. The dynamism of this process
also raises questions about categorical distinctions between the established
lexicon and the productive lexicon. We can see in examples of the produc-
tive lexicon in ISL the combination of classiers in conventional ways. The
dierence may be seen therefore in terms of compositional complexity rather
than productivity. We can also note that over time, some items that begin life
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 136 10/04/2012 11:00

The ISL Lexicon 137
Example 6.5
(b) SHOWER (onset) (b) SHOWER (offset)
Fiona (36) Personal Stories (Waterford) Fiona (36) Personal Stories (Waterford)
(a) SUN (onset) (a) SUN (offset)
Marian (16) Personal Stories (Dublin) Marian (16) Personal Stories (Dublin)
(c) BOMB (onset) (c) BOMB (offset)
Lianne (14) Personal Stories (Dublin) Lianne (14) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 137 10/04/2012 11:00

138 Irish Sign Language
(e) CEILING-LIGHTS (onset) (e) CEILING-LIGHTS (offset)
Fergus D. (06) Personal Stories (Dublin) Fergus D. (06) Personal Stories (Dublin)
(f) (CAR)-HEADLAMPS (onset) (f) (CAR)-HEADLAMPS (offset)
Fiona (36) Personal Stories (Waterford) Fiona (36) Personal Stories (Waterford)
(d) TRAFFIC-LIGHTS (onset) (d) TRAFFIC-LIGHTS (offset)
Fiona (36) Personal Stories (Waterford) Fiona (36) Personal Stories (Waterford)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 138 10/04/2012 11:00

The ISL Lexicon 139
as wholly productive elements become conventionalised. This is particularly
evident in the use of ISL signs like EURO (which trace the outline of the
euro symbol) or in the signs for FAX and SCANNER, MOBILE-PHONE,
LAPTOP-COMPUTER and COMPUTER-MOUSE. These are all items
that have come into the established lexicon of ISL in the past twenty years
via the productive lexicon.
6.5 Gestural substrate
It is dicult to say with certainty just how pervasive the gestural substrate is
with respect to the formation of lexical and grammatical items in ISL, and
even if this were possible, it is essential to note that identifying a gestural
substrate for signs is not the same as saying that signed languages are mere
gesture. Sherman Wilcox makes this case very clearly:
Positing a gesture–language interface does not deny that signed lan-
guages are unique in important ways. Suggesting that signed languages
are kin to gestures, or that developmental paths may lead from gesture
to language, doesn’t mean that signed languages are merely gestures. It
simply means that the remarkable family resemblances between signs
and gestures, and the tight integration of speech and gesture, point to a
common ancestor. (Wilcox 2004b: 69)
At the simplest level, what we can say is that just like hearing speakers of a
language, signers also use gestures. These include ‘emblems’ or ‘quotable ges-
tures’: gestures that are culturally widespread like the holding up of a hand
to indicate STOP, which diers from the lexical sign STOP, identical to the
gesture that a police ocer would use to stop trac. Signers also use iconic
gestures or ‘illustrators’, that is gestures that are closely aligned to speech and
serve to illustrate what is said with respect to physical objects. For example,
a speaker uses his or her hands to show the extent of an object (length, width,
height, etc.) while talking about the subject, adding detail to the mental image
that the speaker is attempting to convey. Further, these gestures give insight
into the viewpoint (rst person or non-rst person) that the speaker is ‘seeing
things from the perspective of’, so to speak. This makes them remarkably
similar in form to the trace-path classier forms we discussed in Chapter 5,
and we consider this in more detail below.
Signers also make use of metaphoric gestures. These serve to explain a
concept and can take the form of specic shapes such as nger pinches, or a
more general waving of hands that symbolises the complexity of what is being
explained.
Another widely used subset of gestural content is ‘regulators’, which are
used to control turn-taking in conversation and include gestures associated
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 139 10/04/2012 11:00

140 Irish Sign Language
with nishing a turn such as dropping of the arms, or seeking to start a turn,
for example raising a hand or a nger in the air. In Chapter 8, we will see
how turn-taking is managed in ISL discourse, and the functions of regulators
like the raising of a hand in typical signed language discourse. Other gestural
categories are ‘beats’ which accompany a point to create emphasis. A short
beat, where, for example, a speaker might wag his or her nger in time to the
prosody of his or her speech, or even bangs the table to emphasise a point,
can mark an important point in conversation.
A good place to start in considering the relationship of gesture to sign is to
consider a denition of gesture. We can agree that ‘a gesture is a functional
unit, an equivalence class of coordinated movements that achieve some end’
(Armstrong et al. 1995; Studdert-Kennedy 1987). Sherman Wilcox builds
on this denition and situates his work on gesture and language, with a
particular focus on gesture and signed languages in cognitive grammar.
Cognitive grammarians claim that:
all of language, including lexicon, morphology, and grammar, is fully
describable as assemblies of symbolic structures, pairings of semantic
and phonological structures. These symbolic structures vary along
several dimensions, including schematicity, symbolic complexity, and
conventionalization. Although the gestures [examined here] [. . .] do not
initially display internal complexity, as they are incorporated into the
linguistic system they do begin to combine with other elements. Two
corollaries must be noted. First, although symbolic complexity applies
to unipolar structures: either form or meaning may vary from compo-
nentially simple to complex. Second, not only can individual symbolic
components be combined to form a complex composite structure, but
unanalyzed structures can be broken down into components. (Wilcox
2004b: 47)
Such decomposition includes analysis of the phonological elements of hand-
shape, movement, location and orientation that we discussed earlier in this
volume. It also includes analysis of things like manner of movement and
movement type. Wilcox (ibid.) notes that once movement types become part
of a linguistic system, they can combine to create composite forms, and he
urges us to bear in mind that movement and manner of movement initially
appear as unanalysed conceptual units. Wilcox describes conventionalisation
as ‘the measure of how much a structure is shared’ (ibid.). That is, conven-
tional structures are widely shared and known to be shared among a com-
munity of language users (Langacker 1987) though ‘schematicity, symbolic
complexity, and conventionality each vary along independent continua that
apply both to form and meaning’ (Wilcox 2004b). Moving forward from this
theoretical point, Wilcox argues a strong case for two routes to the evolution
of gesture to signed language:
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 140 10/04/2012 11:00

The ISL Lexicon 141
The rst route begins with a gesture that is not a conventional unit in
the relevant linguistic system. This gesture becomes incorporated into a
signed language as a lexical item. Over time, these lexical items acquire
grammatical function. [. . .] The second route proceeds along a dier-
ent path. The source is not a free-standing gesture capable of being
incorporated as a lexical item into a signed language. Rather the source
gesture may be one of several types, including a particular manner of
movement of a manual gesture or sign, and various facial, mouth, and
eye gestures. (2004b: 48)
Examples of the rst route take a quotable gesture that is borrowed into
the linguistic system as a lexical sign. Over time, the gesture takes on a
more grammatical function as a result of grammaticalisation processes. For
American Sign Language, research has demonstrated that the morphological
marker for future developed from the lexical morpheme GO, which in turn
has a gestural basis (Janzen and Shaer 2002; Shaer 2000). This is described
as being produced with the palm of the hand open and held edgewise, with
a repeated upward movement (de Jorgio 2000) and is a gesture still used
amongst hearing people in the Mediterranean region (Morris et al. 1979).
This gesture also appears in French Sign Language as the lexical morpheme
PARTIR ‘depart’ (Wilcox 2004b), which strongly resembles the ISL sign
GO-OFF illustrated in Example 6.6.
Example 6.6
Examples of the second route take an improvised gesture which is incorporated
into the lexicon of the given signed language and over time, via grammaticali-
sation processes, acquires grammatical meaning. These gestures often begin
the route to lexical or grammatical element as a gesture that enacts an actual
or metaphorical object, a characteristic or a concept (Wilcox 2004b). Wilcox
suggests that ASL evidential forms such as SEEM, FEEL and CLEAR/
OBVIOUS have grammaticalised from the lexical morphemes MIRROR,
FEEL (used in its physical sense) and BRIGHT, and that each of these lexical
(a) GO-OFF (b) GO-OFF (c) GO-OFF
Peter (18) Personal Stories Lawrence (19) Personal Stories Helen (27) Personal Stories
(Dublin) (Wexford)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 141 10/04/2012 11:00

142 Irish Sign Language
items can be traced back to a gestural source. He outlines the following devel-
opmental path for these ASL items:
1. [gesture enacting upper body strength] >STRONG>CAN
2. [gesture enacting looking in a mirror]>MIRROR>SEEM
3. [gesture enacting physically sensing with nger]>FEEL
(physical)>FEEL (evidential)
4. [metaphorical gesture indicating rays of light]>BRIGHT>CLEAR/
OBVIOUS (evidential). (56)
While linguists have not examined grammaticalisation processes in ISL
or specically analysed the gestural basis of signs in a systematic manner,
we can point out that there are parallels to the process described for ASL
in (3) above. As in ASL, ISL appears to use the lexical morpheme FEEL to
represent both physical and evidential situations as in Example 6.7.
Example 6.7
In Example 6.7(a) we see a physical touching of the snow, with the enactment
of a situation where one physically reaches out to touch something. In (b) the
lexical item FEEL is used and while this use could be interpreted as a literal
experience of feeling a stag approach by, for example vibration, it is more
likely given that an evidential reading is intended. In (c) no such ambiguity
exists and the use of FREE here is purely about a mental state, the reported
feeling of freedom.
This analysis seems to sit well with the third of the three tendencies that
arise in the grammaticalisation process, described by Traugott: (1) meanings
based in the external situation become meanings based in the internal, evalu-
ative/perceptual/cognitive situation; (2) meanings based either in the external
or internal situation become meanings based in the textual or metalinguistic
situation; and (3) meanings tend to become increasingly based on the speak-
er’s subjective belief, state, or attitude towards the proposition expressed
(a) FEEL-SNOW (b) FEEL HOLD-LIFTING (c) FEEL FREE
(. . . and felt the snow . . .) BRANCHES THERE STAG (. . . and they felt free . . .)
Mary (33) Personal Stories (. . . and I felt that there was a Senan (01) Personal Stories
(Dublin) stag there) Eric (32) Frog Story (Dublin)
(Cork)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 142 10/04/2012 11:00

The ISL Lexicon 143
(Traugott 1989; Wilcox 2004b). As Wilcox points out, items that are based
in speaker subjectivity are an indication of a greater degree of grammaticali-
sation of that item. This view on the grammaticalisation of gesture to sign
language morpheme is one that has gained currency amongst researchers in
the early part of the twenty-rst century with some scholars noting the need
to
rethink assumptions about the relationship between signed languages
and gesture and to seek further evidence of the extent to which move-
ment and location in classier constructions may be grammaticalised
gestures, or whether they involve blends of linguistic and gestural ele-
ments. (Schembri et al. 2005: 287)
Others, like Vermeerbergen and Demey (2007), call for re-examination of
the assumption that signed languages fall on one end of what some research-
ers call ‘Kendon’s Continuum’ while co-speech gestures (that is, gestures that
co-occur with spoken elements) and other kinds of manual activity occur at
other points of the continuum (McNeill 1992; Vermeerbergen and Demey
2007) as follows: gesticulation>language-like-gestures>pantomimes>emble
ms>signed languages. Instead, Vermeerbergen and Demey suggest that when
studying natural languages, researchers need to take account of output from
all channels, including manual and oral, considering how each channel may
incorporate elements that are more language-like elements or less language-
like elements.
To sum up, for ISL it is clear that gesture plays a role as a substrate inu-
encing the formation of lexical and grammaticalised items, but also may
appear in other forms and serve functions akin to those identied in spoken
languages. It may be preferable, as Johnston et al. (2007) suggest, to correct
the tendency to view languages as homogeneous systems and instead see
them as more heterogeneous, combining elements such as gesture.
6.6 Male and female varieties
As we saw in Chapter 3, gender variants in ISL are a direct result of edu-
cational segregation (that is, the educational policy on segregation of the
genders led to the separation of boys from girls) which, coupled with oralism,
led to the development of male and female varieties of ISL, or more cor-
rectly, to St Joseph’s and St Mary’s variants of ISL, with additional in-cohort
variants arising. In Chapter 3, we mentioned the pioneering work of Barbara
LeMaster in documenting the extent of the lexical dierences in gendered-
generational ISL (LeMaster 1990, 1999–2000, 2002; LeMaster and O’Dwyer
1991). While LeMaster’s work focused on the now elderly cohort of ISL,
Leeson and Grehan (2004) explored (1) whether female variants still were
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 143 10/04/2012 11:00

144 Irish Sign Language
used by younger Deaf women than those LeMaster described and (2) what
the form and function of some of these might be. They focused specically on
documenting for the rst time the female signs that emerged amongst cohorts
of women who were educated orally. The signs they describe emerged organi-
cally, created by cohorts of female students who had very limited access to
older signing role models due to the physical segregation of girls who signed
from those who were branded ‘oral successes’, as discussed in Chapter 3.
Leeson and Grehan describe some of the female signs that women who had
attended St Mary’s use. One of these is the sign glossed as FUNNY-ON
(female), a compound that follows the general principles of compound
formation in ISL (see Chapter 5 for discussion). They note that the sign co-
occurs with a mouthed element that approximates a ‘vun-on’ pattern, prob-
ably derived from the English words ‘funny’ and ‘on’. This sign means ‘that
an item of clothing or a suit of clothes does not look good on a person; that
is, the person’s clothes look funny (strange) on that person’ (49). Another
example from this genre is SPOIL (female), which co-occurs with the mouth-
ing, ‘spoil’. SPOIL is used in contexts where the signer has made a mistake,
done something wrong, or said something they regret (52).
Other gendered signs that form part of the established lexicon include signs
that do not take identiably English mouthings, despite their proximity to
oralism. This category includes signs like ‘F’ (traditionally a male sign, now
widely used) which co-occurs with a close lipped mouth action (Leeson and
Grehan 2004: 53–4), FOO (female) which co-occurs with the mouthing ‘foo’
(47), and DID-ON-PURPOSE (female), which has a ‘buv-e’ oral component.
Describing the form and function of ‘F’, Matthews notes that
The distinguishing feature is the pace of movement, combined with
various non manual features together with the head and shoulder
movement. These combinations of features give rise to several explicitly
dierent meanings such as ‘oops – I made a mistake, I’m surprised at
that, take that with a grain of salt (scepticism)’ or it can also mean ‘I
was wrong’ or be used as a response to news as ‘fancy that’ or ‘I would
not have expected that’. (1996a: 157)
FOO has two female variants which carry related meanings. Leeson
and Grehan (2004: 47) note that FOO can be articulated with an ASL-T-
handshape, which has its onset at the signer’s body at chest level as shown in
Example 6.8(a). The hand then travels forward, making contact with the non-
dominant hand, which nds its position in neutral space. The non-dominant
hand takes the same handshape as the dominant hand. The dominant hand
then travels, palm facing the signer, back towards the onset point. The move-
ment is rapid and smooth. The oral component is a lip pattern that resembles
the pronunciation of the components ‘a-vu’. FOO is typically used when a
signer observes or learns that someone has told an interlocutor something
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 144 10/04/2012 11:00

The ISL Lexicon 145
that the person already knew, something that is hurtful to the person, or
something that the interlocutor should not have known. FOO (female variant)
can also be articulated to the side of the signer, as in Example 6.8(b). Here
the handshapes of the dominant and non-dominant hands remain in an ASL-
T-handshape, but the place of articulation is lowered and to the side of the
signer, so as to be unobservable by a third party. When articulated at this
location, FOO is used when the signer wants to quietly inform an interlocu-
tor that what the interlocutor is saying is inappropriate and that the person
should stop. Both of these variants dier from an existing male variant of
FOO which serves a similar discourse function but has dierent articulatory
parameters.
Example 6.8
Leeson and Grehan (ibid.) describe DID-ON-PURPOSE as a two-handed
sign, where the dominant hand takes an ASL-G-handshape, with the palm
facing the signer. The tip of the index nger moves from a point of onset
at the chin. As the hand moves, the palm rotates. The hand arcs forward
and downward, and as it moves, the handshape changes, becoming an
(a) FOO (onset) (Female) Variant 1 (a) FOO (offset) (Female) Variant 1
(b) FOO (onset) (Female) Variant 2 (b) FOO (offset) (Female) Variant 2
Sarah-Jane (09) Personal Stories (Dublin) Sarah-Jane (09) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 145 10/04/2012 11:00

146 Irish Sign Language
open-5-handshape. The palm at this stage faces downward. The non-domi-
nant hand nds its position in neutral space, with a at-B-handshape, palm
facing upward. The dominant hand makes contact with the non-dominant
hand and slides along its surface. DID-ON-PURPOSE can be used in a
broad range of circumstances, for example a female signer can use it to refer
to her own deliberate actions or to describe the wilful actions of another
person, male or female (though male signers could not use this sign to refer
to a woman in the same position: they would use the male variety of this
sign). DID-ON-PURPOSE co-occurs with the oral component ‘buv-e’. DID-
ON-PURPOSE can be used when a signer’s interlocutors have deliberately
manipulated a situation. For example, if a student was supposed to have
handed in an assignment on a certain date and deliberately did not bring
it to class, the student might sign DID-ON-PURPOSE to a fellow student,
making sure that the teacher did not observe the interaction. In other con-
texts, DID-ON-PURPOSE can be used when the interlocutor intended no
manipulation but is nevertheless suspected by the signer. (See Example 6.9.)
Example 6.9
A sign that began life as a female variant, but which is now used by men in
their 30s and 40s is WUF. Leeson and Grehan (ibid.) describe how WUF
is articulated with a bent-5-handshape, palm facing sideways. The onset
of the sign is parallel with the signer’s cheek on the dominant side of the
signing space. The hand moves across the signer’s face, closing as it moves,
until it becomes a closed-st-S-handshape. The oral component is a ‘wuf’
movement, lending its name to the female signers’ label for the sign. WUF is
typically used when one nds out that someone (other than the signer) has
decided that an activity is not permitted. WUF is a response to thinking that
the decision is silly. For example, if a schoolgirl is told that she is not allowed
to go to the local stores, she might sign WUF (that is, she thinks that the ban
on her going shopping is unfair or stupid). Adult women also use WUF in
DID-ON-PURPOSE (onset) DID-ON-PURPOSE (offset)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 146 10/04/2012 11:00

The ISL Lexicon 147
response to a decision that they think is without merit. For example, if the
Centre for Deaf Studies at Trinity College Dublin had decided to ban the
use of ISL, we might expect female students and sta to respond with WUF.
In the mid 1990s, Leeson and Grehan reported that while WUF is widely
considered to be a ‘strong’ female sign, they had occasionally witnessed male
signers aged 30–45 years using it. In the interim, WUF seems to have become
more widespread in use amongst male signers under 45 years and it will be
interesting to monitor the use of this sign over time.
One interesting aspect of the signs we have illustrated is the lack of iconic
or gestural basis for them. In contrast, there are other signs which have an
iconic basis. These include EYEBROW-RAISE (the index nger is placed
at the eyebrow level and traces the raising of an eyebrow to mark surprise
or fear at some suggestion; see Example 6.10(a)) and DON’T-ANNOY-ME
(elbow used as if to push someone who is annoying the signer away from their
side; see Example 6.10(b)).
Example 6.10
What this suggests is that an iconic base is not obligatory when generating
new lexical items in ISL, with the potential for arbitrary (if contextually
determined) signs emerging. It is also important to point out that while these
signs have sometimes been dismissed as ‘not real signs’ by hearing educators,
Deaf men and occasionally Deaf women themselves because of their distance
from English, these gendered variants are just as much a part of the estab-
lished lexicon of ISL as established signs like HOUSE or HOME.
6.7 Summary
In this chapter, we have explored the range of inuences on the formation
of the lexicon in ISL. We have seen that there are a number of internal and
(a) EYEBROW-RAISE (b) DON’T-ANNOY-ME
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 147 10/04/2012 11:00

148 Irish Sign Language
external forces that have been brought to bear on ISL. External forces
include the language contact situation with BSL, LSF and other signed lan-
guages as well as English. We saw that this has led to the borrowing into ISL
of morphemes from other languages that have, over time, undergone pho-
nological changes. We also saw the signicant role that gesture has played
as a substrate for many signs. This role arises not just because gesture seems
to be a universal feature of human communication, but also because of the
atypical language transmission paths that most deaf children experience in
the acquisition of ISL. Without Deaf parents, the majority scaold their lan-
guage development on conventionalised gestures that are often referred to in
the Deaf community (and the literature) as HOME SIGN. This gestural root
is often married to metonymic elements and when lexicalised, these metony-
mies remain identiable. We considered the role of metaphor in the system
and saw that it has a signicant role to play in driving ISL conceptually. We
noted that this applies at the level of underlying idealised conceptual models
(ICMs) as in metaphors like TIME IS MONEY which generates a cluster-
ing of verbs around particular concepts. We also saw how ICMs operate
to underpin the development of the productive lexicon, sometimes pushing
towards the lexicalisation of what were probably originally productive forms.
These include BODY IS A CONTAINER and IDEAS ARE LIQUID. When
such metaphors are nested, we can arrive at very complex patterns of lan-
guage use, an issue that we have simply scratched the surface of here.
Finally, we noted that when generating new lexical items in ISL, it seems
that while iconicity plays an important role, it is not obligatory, and this
allows for the emergence of arbitrary signs even in contexts where they are
less anticipated as is the case for the girls from St Mary’s and St Joseph’s
who generated several arbitrary signs in the context of suppression of their
language and a focus on oral language use.
Notes
1. See <http://www.cuedspeech.org/default.asp> (accessed 25 November
2011).
2. But see Wilcox et al. (2003) for further analysis of the metonymic basis for
name signs.
3. We discuss prototype theory in more detail in Chapter 9.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 148 10/04/2012 11:00

7 Syntax
7.1 Introduction
In this chapter we look at how ISL sentences are constructed. In comparison
with some other signed languages there has been relatively little investigation
of syntactic structure and our discussion remains at a fairly preliminary level.
We begin by looking at the basic building blocks of sentences, the syntactic
categories. We saw in Chapter 5 the morphological behaviour that distin-
guishes the two basic grammatical categories of noun and verb. They are also
distinguished by their syntactic behaviour, that is the other elements they
combine with to form sentences. For example, nouns may be modied by
determiners and adjectives; verbs are modied by adverbs. The main gram-
matical categories of ISL, identiable by their morphological and syntactic
behaviour are: noun, verbs, pronouns, adjectives, determiners, prepositions
and conjunctions. These may be further subdivided into classes, for example
a subclass of verbs is auxiliary verbs, which unlike main verbs cannot form
sentences by combining with nouns, as discussed below. The classes of noun,
main verb and adjective are in general open classes, in that new members can
be added by signers creating, or coining, new words, or as loans. However,
the system of classier handshapes described in Chapter 5 imposes a closed
system on a subset of verbs. The classes of pronoun, auxiliary verb, deter-
miner, preposition and conjunction are closed classes in that their member-
ship changes only very slowly over time and generally cannot be added to
by an individual act of coining. The question of whether there is a unitary
syntactic category of adverb is problematic. There are lexical signs such as
THEN, which are used to modify predicates, and intensiers like VERY,
which modify adjectives. However, as we saw in Chapter 5, verbal signs
may also be modied by changes in their articulation, for example by speed
and iteration. They may also be modied by non-manual features produced
during the sign, as with the feature ‘mm’ described in Chapter 5, which pro-
vides the adverbial information that the action occurred ‘in the normal way’
or ‘normally’. Thus these various forms share the same type of function but
do not make up a discrete formal class.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 149 10/04/2012 11:00

150 Irish Sign Language
7.2 The building blocks of syntax: nouns, verbs and other categories
7.2.1 Noun phrases
Noun phrases are the syntactic units that can act as arguments of a verb to
form a sentence. At their simplest they consist of a single item, which may
be a name, noun or pronoun. Of these three types, nouns may combine
with other elements like determiners and adjectives to form complex noun
phrases. We look at each type of nominal in turn.
7.2.1.1 Names
Members of the Irish Deaf community use name signs as personal names.
These are distinct from ocial names, recorded in English and Irish. Given
their longevity and generality amongst the community, name signs are unlike
nicknames in the surrounding spoken language communities. As has been
noted for name signs in American Sign Language, names in ISL can be
categorised into dierent types, including initialised sign-names and sign-
names associated with the physical characteristics, personality or actions
of a person. If we look at the rst type, many Irish signers have sign names
that take the initials of their rst name and surname and combine them with
the mouthed English name. In some instances only their rst name is used,
while in other instances both rst and surname are used. This may involve
the simultaneous production of both elements, so for example if someone
were called Kevin Smith, he might have a sign-name where the dominant
hand articulates a K-handshape against a non-dominant hand that takes an
S-handshape. Typically such signs involve a repeated movement. In other
instances, both initials may be articulated only on the dominant hand. For
example, someone called Peter O’Malley might have a sign-name that sees
the dominant hand articulate a transition from P to M, or indeed, this might
result in a ngersigned P-O-M. In other cases, only the initial of the rst name
along with the mouthed English name (either rst name only or both name
and surname) may be used. Thus someone called Patricia O’Reilly might
have a sign-name that is a P-handshape that has a movement attached to it.
Other sign-names are initialised but articulated on the body. Frequently used
parts of the body for sign-names include the non-dominant arm, the cheek
and the side of the head.
Another group of sign-names take a physical characteristic of the signer,
sometimes originating in childhood, that typically becomes the signer’s
name-sign for life. Examples from ISL include PIG-TAILS (for a woman
who wore her hair in pigtails as a child), HAIR-QUIFF (for a man
who wears his hair in a qui), BALD-HEAD, RED-CHEEKS, BUSHY-
BEARD, GOATEE-BEARD, LONG-HAIR, CURLY-HAIR, FLAT-
NOSE, WEARS-GLASSES and WEARS-SEVERAL-EARRINGS. Other
name groups reect perceptions of the signer’s personality, such as the sign-
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 150 10/04/2012 11:00

Syntax 151
names PATIENT and SWEET; or something that they characteristically do,
like RUB-JAW, WEAR-OVER-EAR-HEARING-AID, DANCES, PLAY-
PIANO or PUSH-GLASSES-UP-NOSE (Supalla 1992; Wilcox et al. 2003).
For some signers – and anecdotally, this seems to be truer for younger
signers than older signers – it is possible that they may know another Deaf
person’s sign name but not their English name. What is important to note is
that signers do not select their own sign-names: they are given sign-names
by the community, and typically have the opportunity to reject a proposed
sign-name before an agreed sign is adopted. Given this, it is very rare that
someone changes their sign-name, even when it may refer back to a charac-
teristic of their childhood experience, for example someone who is now bald
will still carry the sign-name CURLY-HAIR, and someone who now uses a
digital hearing aid may be known as WEARS-BODY-RADIO-AID.
There are some similarities in the categories of names for places. Some
places have lexicalised signs such as DUBLIN, BELFAST, KERRY,
MONAGHAN and DONEGAL. While none of the former signs have any
initialised element associated with them, other lexical signs do: an example is
the K-handshape articulated at the ipsilateral chest area, which, depending on
which mouthed element it co-occurs with, can mean either Kildare or Kells.
Yet others are based (at least partially) in calques, for example WATER-F
‘Waterford’, LONG-F ‘Longford’ and rather amusingly, BALLS-BRIDGE
‘Ballsbridge’ for the Dublin suburb. Other place names may have originally
been ngerspelled in full, but over time, phonological deletion rules have
applied and today a reduced number of letters are articulated, and this,
together with an identiable movement pattern, suggest that the formerly
ngerspelled items have lexicalised to a greater or lesser degree. As we saw in
Chapter 6, examples include C-O-R-K (‘Cork’), T-I-P-P (‘Tipperary’), L-K
(‘Limerick’) and G-W-Y (‘Galway’). We also saw in Chapter 6 how cued
speech, which attempts to provide visual access to the phonemes of spoken
languages, has occasionally been used in word formation among some
cohorts of graduates from St Mary’s School for Deaf Girls. An example is
the use of the little nger at the lips to represent ‘k’ sounds. This gesture has
stabilised to mean CORK and is used by some female signers.
7.2.1.2 Nouns
Common nouns denote classes of items, as we have seen in many examples in
this book, such as MAN, CAR and CINEMA. We looked at some aspects of
the morphology of nouns in Chapter 5: we saw, for example that some nouns
may be pluralised by reduplication. Nouns may combine with determiners,
which help hearers identify the intended referent by giving specic informa-
tion to distinguish entities in the context, such THIS and THAT; quantity,
such as LOT (many); or possession relations, such MY and YOUR. The
manual form of THIS and THAT is identical with an INDEX-handshape
pointing into the neutral space ahead of the signer. In Example 7.1(a), the
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 151 10/04/2012 11:00

152 Irish Sign Language
signer signs THIS YEAR, situating the relative proximity of the intended win
in basketball on the mixed timeline. In (b) the signer is referring to another
point in time when she went to Belfast.
Example 7.1
Nouns may also be modied by adjectives, such as BIG, SMALL, NEW,
OLD and SMALL, and by colour terms, with the adjective typically occur-
ring pre-nominally as in Example 7.2.
 Example 7.2
(a) THINK BIG HEAD
‘(I) thought (he was) big headed’
(Laurence (19) Personal Stories (Dublin))
(b) MEAN BIG LADDER
‘meant the big ladder’
(Michelle (05) Personal Stories (Dublin))
(c) BIG CELEBRATION
‘big celebration’
(Bernie (02) Personal Stories (Dublin))
(d) STOP RED TRAFFIC-LIGHT
‘(He) stopped at the red traffic light’
(Fiona (36) Personal Stories (Waterford))
(a) THIS (a) YEAR (Atypical Handshape)
Caroline (15) Personal Stories (Dublin) Caroline (15) Personal Stories (Dublin)
(b) THAT (b) TIME
Lianne (14) Personal Stories (Dublin) Lianne (14) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 152 10/04/2012 11:00

Syntax 153
(e) SMALL HANDBAG
‘(It was a) small handbag’
(Marian (16) Personal Stories (Dublin))
(f) SMALL GIRL
‘a little girl’
(Helen (27) Personal Stories (Wexford))
(g) SMALL BOY
‘a little boy’
(Sean Frog Story (Dublin))
(h) OLD WOMAN
‘a (nosey) old woman’
(Valerie (12) Personal Stories (Dublin))
(i) OLD FASHION
‘old fashioned’
(Annie (26) Personal Stories (Wexford))
All of the examples in 7.2 illustrate the general tendency for adjectives
to precede nouns in ISL. There are occasions where the noun comes before
the adjective, but while we might normally expect these instances to arise
in topic-marked clauses, there is no evidence of non-manual marking for
topic for TREE-IN-BRANCHES in Example 7.3. This suggests that in ISL,
signers have the option of producing adjectives pre- or post-nominally, but
that the typical case is for adjectives to come before the noun. Interestingly,
only adjectives quantifying size (BIG and SMALL) were found in post-
nominal position, as in Examples 7.3 and 7.4.
Example 7.3
 Example 7.4
(a) BUY SELF OWN SHOVEL SMALL-ONE
‘You had to buy your own small shovel’
(Kevin (17) Personal Stories (Dublin))
(b) WHEN JASON SMALL
‘When Jason was small’
(Catherine (31) Personal Stories (Cork))
(a) (SEE TREE) IN-BRANCHES h.o.l.e. BIG
The boy saw a tree, and in the branches of the tree there was a big hole’
Fergus D. (Dublin) Frog Story
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 153 10/04/2012 11:00

154 Irish Sign Language
(c) TWO MAN SMALL SLIM
‘Two men, (both of whom were) small and slim’
(Michael (34) Personal Stories (Galway))
When quantiers and numerals are used as determiners the noun is not
normally pluralised, for example ALL BOY ‘all (the) boys’, or, as in (c)
above, TWO MAN (the two men).
As shown in many examples in this book, ISL, like some spoken lan-
guages such as Japanese or Russian, does not routinely employ articles, such
as English a and the, although some signers do use a lexical sign THE as
in Example 7.5. This is not used in any way approaching the frequency of
English: indeed, there is only one instance of THE in the annotated section
of the SOI corpus. These words in English signal the accessibility of referents
in the discourse, for example distinguishing between a rst mention and
subsequent references to the same entity. In Chapter 8 we discuss some ISL
strategies to achieve similar discourse goals.
Example 7.5
7.2.1.3 Pronouns
Pronouns function in ISL quite dierently from spoken languages because
they map referents to locations. It is useful to make a distinction between the
deictic and anaphoric uses of pronouns. The deictic use relies on the physical
presence of the referent in the context of communication. Deictic pronouns
are formed with pointing signs: the direction of pointing allows three-fold
distinction between signer, addressee and others, each identied by their
real-world location. We can gloss these as INDEX+c (rst person reference),
INDEX+f (YOU/HE/SHE – as determined by context or previously estab-
lished locus at that point in space).
IN THE KITCHEN
Peter (18) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 154 10/04/2012 11:00

Syntax 155
Example 7.6
(a) INDEX+c BEGIN DECIDE GO-OFF BELFAST*
INDEX+fl INDEX+c* FOR* SHOPPING*
‘I began by deciding to go to Belfast to do some shopping’
Lianne (14) Personal Stories (Dublin)
(b) INDEX+f (you)
Michelle (Dublin) Frog Story
(c) INDEX+f (HE/HIM/SHE/HER/IT)
Louise (35) Personal Stories (Galway)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 155 10/04/2012 11:00

156 Irish Sign Language
It is important to note that the forms in Examples 7.6(b) and (c) are identical
in form, and the means of identifying the intended referent lies with under-
standing how the signers have conceptualised their signing space, where they
have established referents in that space and how they have tracked movement
of referents across the signing space, including through the use of surrogates
(also known as reference shifting or ‘role shifting’ devices). We will discuss
some of these strategies in more detail in Chapter 8.
In addition to the use of INDEX as a pronominal referential device, it
is worth noting that in ISL, there are lexical forms for HE, SHE, THEY
and WE which are also used by some signers, though these are used much
less frequently than the INDEX form. For example, in the Signs of Ireland
corpus, there are eight instances of the lexicalised form of HE, two instances
of SHE (both by the same signer), nine instances of THEY and ve instances
of lexicalised WE in a total of more than 46,000 glossed tokens (see Example
7.7). In contrast, there are 1,527 instances of INDEX (INDEX+c, INDEX+f,
INDEX+sl, etc.) across the corpus, suggesting that the most frequent means
of indicating pronominal relationships is via use of indexical forms, mapped
onto signing space. Further research to explore the relative distribution of such
forms in context would add to our understanding of how emphasis may be
marked through choice of lexicalised pronominal forms over indexical forms.
Example 7.7
(a) WE (Lexical)
Mary (33) Personal Stories (Galway)
(b) HE (Lexical) (Onset) (c) HE (Lexical) (Offset)
Fergus M. (07) Personal Stories (Dublin) Fergus M. (07) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 156 10/04/2012 11:00

Syntax 157
Plural non-rst person forms are formed by moving the pointing sign
though a horizontal arc in the direction of the referents, as in Example 7.8.
 Example 7.8
(a) HE OFTEN TELL-ALL
‘He often told everyone’
(Fergus M. (07) Personal Stories (Dublin))
(b) ALL-OF-THEM FUNNY
‘All of them thought it was funny’
(Mary (30) Personal Stories (Cork))
An inclusive rst person plural pronoun WE/US is formed by a downward-
pointing sign moved in an arc or circular motion between the signer and
addressee(s). We note that where number is specied (for example, TWO-
OF-US, THREE-OF-US or FOUR-OF-US), then the INDEX-handshape
is replaced by a numerical handshape but the arced or circular motion is
maintained, as in Example 7.9.
Example 7.9
(d) SHE (Lexical) (Onset) (e) SHE (Lexical) (Offset)
Alice (29) Personal Stories (Cork) Alice (29) Personal Stories (Cork)
(a) TWO-OF-US (onset) (b) two-of-us (offset) (c) THREE-OF-US
Rebecca (38) Personal Stories Margaret (21) Personal Stories
(Cork) (Wexford)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 157 10/04/2012 11:00

158 Irish Sign Language
The anaphoric use of pronouns is dependent on the prior establishment of
nominal referents. Typically a nominal is introduced and associated with a
location in the signing space by the use of a deictic determiner. Thereafter a
pointing sign directed to that location acts as a pronominal reference to that
entity. The occurrence of these deictic pronouns interacts with the morpho-
logical class of the verb. Thus with plain verbs they may be the only marker
of the arguments, as in Example 7.10.
 Example 7.10
INDEX+fr KNOW INDEX+f+lo WAS INDEX+f ENGINE
‘He (the mechanic) knew that the problem (with the car) was engine related’
(Fergus (06) Personal Stories (Dublin))
In Example 7.10, the signer has established his friend, a mechanic at +fr
in signing space. His car, which is giving him trouble is at +f+lo. Here, the
signer layers information associated with the car so that the +f+lo locus is
co-referential for the car, the car’s bonnet and all parts of the engine.
In person agreement verbs information about the arguments, for example
actor and undergoer, is incorporated into the articulation of the sign itself, as
we saw in Chapter 5, and independent pronouns are less common. However,
while in principle it is possible for independent pronouns to co-occur with
morphological agreement markers for emphasis, this does not seem to be a
commonly occurring feature.
7.2.2 Verbs
We saw in Chapter 5 a number of dierent morphological classes of verb. In
syntax, we distinguish between main verbs, which combine with nouns to form
sentences, and auxiliary verbs, which combine with verbs and therefore are not
independent. ISL auxiliary verbs convey distinctions of tense, modality and
aspect and include CAN, FINISH, MUST, NEED, SHOULD and WILL.
Auxiliary verbs occur before the main verb, as in Examples 7.11 and 7.12.
 Example 7.11
(a) DAUGHTER SAID WILL BACK HOME CL:L (ISL)+sl+fl (‘Sometime-after’) IN
*JUNE
‘(My) daughter said that she would be home at some point in June’
(Peter (18) Personal Stories (Dublin))
(b) KNOW FUTURE TWO ZERO SIX WILL SET-UP f+CAMERA+c gesture
2xCL5 palms-up
‘I know that in future, in 2006, we will be able to use video-based
(interpreting services)’
(Annie (26) Personal Stories (Wexford))
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 158 10/04/2012 11:00

Syntax 159
 Example 7.12
(a) INDEX+c LOVE IT BECAUSE CAN SIGN
‘I love it because I can sign (there)’
(Noeleen (03) Personal Stories (Dublin))
(b) CAN+++
‘(He really) can (do it)’
(Fergus (06) Personal Stories (Dublin))
(c) . . . FEEL SHOULD NOT WAR . . .
‘. . . felt that there should not be a war . . .’
(Senan (01) Personal Stories (Dublin))
(d) NEXT TIME PREPARE MUST MAKE SURE TAKE-NOTES DETAIL LIKE
WALL NAME WALL NAME PLASTER . . .
‘Next time, in preparation, (I) must make sure to take note of things like what
kind of a wall is involved, what kind of plaster is used . . .’
(Annie (26) Personal Stories (Wexford))
Some morphological classes of main verb were discussed in Chapter 5,
where we saw that main verbs may be intransitive (LAUGH), transitive
(IGNORE) or ditransitive (GIVE). We also saw that the mode of marking
arguments diers across types. So agreement verbs carry inectional marking
of arguments while plain verbs do not.
7.2.3 Adjectives and adverbs
As noted above, certain lexical signs may function as either adjectives or
adverbs. Adjectives may occur as predicates in ISL, without a linking or
copula verb, as in Example 7.13.
 Example 7.13
(a) SHE ALWAYS HAPPY WITH ME
‘She is always happy with me’
(Alice (29) Personal Stories (Cork))
(b) EVENING COLD+
‘The evening was very cold’
(Patrick (33) Personal Stories (Wexford))
As described in Chapter 5, and shown in Example 7.13(b), adjectives and
adverbs can be modulated in their articulation to convey graded distinctions
of manner, intensity and other qualities, such as size.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 159 10/04/2012 11:00

160 Irish Sign Language
7.2.4 Prepositions
ISL generally draws on the capacity to utilise signing space to represent loca-
tions and spatial relations in the real world, such as are marked in English by
prepositions like on, under, in, over or beside. That said, ISL also has lexical
items that are also used in lieu of or in addition to spatially represented
locative relationships. In a study focused on cross-linguistic analysis of
data, Johnston et. al (2007) analysed locative utterances (and reversible and
non-reversible utterances) in three signed languages (Auslan, Flemish Sign
Language and ISL). For ISL, they report that eight of the twelve locative
examples analysed made use of a lexical preposition like ON and UNDER
in the verb slot (for example, CAT ON CHAIR or Argument 1 PREP
Argument 2). In some responses the use of a preposition was clearly inu-
enced by English grammar (for example, TABLE WITH BALL UNDER
i.t.). Ten of the ISL locative responses consisted of at least two clauses or
more. In nine of these, the subsequent clause(s) involved a simultaneous
construction. Forty-ve per cent of the responses for locative situations in
the ISL data set included simultaneous constructions, with only one respond-
ent not making use of any simultaneous constructions to mark out locative
relationships. Looking at the SOI corpus, we can say that simultaneous con-
structions are the most typical means of marking out locative relationships
with a small number of lexical prepositions used. For example, while ON is
used as a preposition in Example 7.14(a), in the corpus it is more typically
used in phrasal constructions like GO ON and ENGINE ON. The same
applies to UNDER, with non-locative uses of UNDER found in phrases like
YEAR UNDER FULBRIGHT (‘spent a year funded under the Fulbright
programme’). Example 7.14 illustrates some uses of lexical prepositions in
ISL while Example 7.15 provides some examples of simultaneous encoding
of prepositional relationships via use of classier constructions to represent
the relative location of the positioned entity vis-à-vis a landmark. In Example
7.15(a) the frog is positioned relative to the glass jar holding him (he is con-
tained within it). In (b), the location for ‘under the jumper’ is discernable
only with respect to the position that the classier handshape representing
the sweater takes, while in (c) the boy’s position is situated with respect to the
landmark of ‘the stag’.
 Example 7.14
(a) WALK ON COURT
‘walk onto the (basketball) court’
(Caroline (15) Personal Stories (Dublin))
(b) LOT UNDER TREE
‘[a lot of baby frogs] under the tree’
(Fergus D. (06) Frog Story (Dublin))
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 160 10/04/2012 11:00

Syntax 161
(c) AT LAST FIND UNDER CLOTHES
‘At last, [I] found it under some clothes’
(Catherine (31) Personal Stories (Cork))
(d) INDEX+c WORK BESIDE WINDOW
‘I work beside a window’
(Peter (18) Personal Stories (Dublin))
(e) SIDE PARENTS HOME
‘At the side of [my] parents’ home’
(Fiona (36) Personal Stories (Waterford))
Example 7.15
7.3 Sentence types: statements, questions and imperatives
We can identify the default or basic sentence type in ISL as declarative, used
to make statements, since this type can be described in terms of the absence
of the required and overt markers of other sentence types. So, for example,
the main markers of interrogative sentences, used to make questions, are
non-manual features, especially movements of the signer’s head and body,
that are absent in declarative sentences. One basic type is polar questions,
which are requests for conrmation or denial of a proposition and hence
often called yes–no questions. This sentence type in ISL is marked by the
non-manual features of raised eyebrows, widened eyes and the head tilted
forward, as in Example 7.16.
Example 7.16
_______________________________br
YOU AWAY HOLIDAYS SUMMER YOU
‘Are you going to go away during the summer holidays?’
(Leeson 2001: 23)
(a) FROG-MOVE-AROUND-IN- (b) UNDER-THE-TOP (c) BOY CAUGHT-ON-STAG’S
JAR The frog moved about in ‘(He thought the frog was) under/ ANTLER ‘The boy was caught
the jar’ in the jumper’ on the stag’s antler’
Kevin (Dublin) Frog Story Marian (Dublin) Frog Story Fiona (Waterford) Frog Story
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 161 10/04/2012 11:00

162 Irish Sign Language
A declarative version of this sentence, that is ‘You’re going to go away
during the summer holidays’, would include the same lexical signs but
without the brows raised. In such a declarative a head-nod may co-occur with
the manual signs.
A further sentence type is content questions, which can be seen as a request
for information missing from, or needed to complete, a proposition. Since
in English the type of information required is identied by question words
beginning with wh, for example who, where, why, these are sometimes called
WH-questions in the English grammatical literature. ISL too has question
words that are signed manually; some of these are shown in Example 7.17.
These signs are accompanied by non-manual features, which typically (but
not always) include a forward tilt of the head, together with a lowering of the
eyebrows and, in some cases, a narrowing of the eyes.
Example 7.17
(a) WHAT (b) WHO
Derek (28) Personal Stories (Cork) Kevin (17) Personal Stories (Dublin)
(c) WHERE (onset) WHERE (offset)
Louise (35) Personal Stories (Galway) Louise (35) Personal Stories (Galway)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 162 10/04/2012 11:00

Syntax 163
A third major sentence type is the imperative, typically used to give com-
mands or make requests or strong suggestions. In ISL, lexical items like
MUST and HAVE-TO frequently occur in such contexts as in Example 7.18.
Example 7.18
7.4 Negation
Sentences may be negated in two ways: by inserting a negative word, such as
NOT, NEVER or NOTHING; or by the simultaneous use of a non-manual
sign through the clause. The non-manual sign is a headshake, or side-to-side
movement of the head. We can see these two strategies for negating a state-
ment in Examples 7.19 and 7.20.
 Example 7.19
(a) IF NOTHING LET INSPECTOR EXAMINE . . .
‘If they don’t let the (UN) inspector carry out his examination . . .’
(Senan (01) Personal Stories (Dublin))
(a) INDEX+c MUST TOGETHER (b) HAVE-TO TELEPHONE ENGLAND+f+hi FOR INSURANCE
DEAF ‘(The Police said that I) had to phone England regarding my
‘(My mother said that) I must stay insurance’
with the (other) Deaf (people)’ Nicholas (22) Personal Stories (Dublin)
Margaret (21) Personal Stories
(Wexford)
(d) WHEN
Fergus D. (06) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 163 10/04/2012 11:00

164 Irish Sign Language
(b) DON’T-WANT PLAY
‘. . . but [the dog] didn’t want to play’
(Louise (35) Personal Stories (Galway))
(c) INDEX+c NEVER THINK
‘I never thought . . .’
(Annie (26) Personal Stories (Wexford))
(d) INDEX+c CANNOT STOP THINK++
‘I cannot stop thinking [about it]’
(Rebecca (38) Personal Stories (Waterford))
(e) DISAPPOINT NOT FINISH
‘[I was] disappointed [that it] was not finished’
(Fergus (06) Personal Stories (Dublin))
(f) INDEX+c WILL-NOT DRINK
‘[The dog] would not drink’
(Eilish (10) Personal Stories (Dublin))
 Example 7.20
(a) headshake
EXPLAIN DEAF
‘I tried to explain to those Deaf people, but they wouldn’t accept what I said’
(Geraldine (20) Personal Stories (Dublin))
(b) headshake
LATER-ON THANK PARENT DECIDE* MOVE-OUT BECAUSE INDEX+sl
FATHER RETIRE
‘Later on, thankfully, my parents had decided to move not because of that
(previously discussed incident) but because my father retired’
(Geraldine (20) Personal Stories (Dublin))
(c) headshake
INDEX+c WATCH MAKE INDEX+c
‘I didn’t want to be a watch maker’
(Fergus M. (07) Personal Stories (Dublin))
In Example 7.20(a) above, we see a negative headshake marking a response
from a non-rst party interlocutor (other Deaf people) without any lexical-
ised element being produced. Here, the non-manual negation is the negative
utterance, providing meaning of ‘they didn’t accept what I said’. In contrast,
in (b), the same signer negates the lexical items MOVE-OUT BECAUSE
with a negative headshake, changing the potential meaning from ‘My parents
moved because of that . . .’ to ‘My parents decided to move but not because
of that . . .’. In (c), the signer presents a wholly declarative sentence which he
negates only by non-manual means, with the headshake occurring towards
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 164 10/04/2012 11:00

Syntax 165
the oset of the sentence nal INDEX+c, giving some overlap to this lexical
component, but serving to inuence the scope of the sentence. Questions
may be negated in the same way, for example negative polar questions can
combine the non-manual features for a question and for negation.
7.5 Time in the sentence
As noted in Chapter 5, tense is not marked morphologically on ISL verbs.
Time references are given by a range of strategies at the sentence level, with
the main verb uninected. One strategy is to include time adverbials such as
NOW, TOMORROW and YESTERDAY, as in Example 7.21.
 Example 7.21
(a) . . . NOW WANDER-ROUND . . .
‘. . . and then I wandered round . . .’
(Lianne (14) Personal Stories (Dublin))
(b) NOW LIVE WATERFORD
‘Now I live in Waterford’
(Fiona (36) Personal Stories (Waterford))
(c) TOMORROW MORNING WAKE-UP GET-OUT-OF-BED
‘The next day, he awoke and got out of bed’
(Fergus D. (06) Frog Story (Dublin))
(d) TOMORROW MORNING MY BROTHER (SIGN NAME) DEAF INDEX+f
(SIGN NAME) BEFORE GO-OFF JOB EAT SEE D HAVE TWO OTHER
(gesture) *DOG EAT
‘The next morning, my brother, (name), who is deaf, before he went to work,
he checked that the other dogs (we had two other dogs) had eaten’
(Louise (35) Personal Stories (Galway))
(e) NIGHT THROUGH INDEX+fl IN-BED-TOGETHER SLEEP TOMORROW
MORNING NIGHT INDEX+fl FROG FROG-CLIMB-OUT-OF-JAR-AND-RUN-
AWAY DISAPPEAR BOY AND *DOG TOMORROW MORNING WAKE-UP
GET-OUT-OF-BED . . .
‘During the night, while the boy and dog slept together, the frog crept out of
the jar and ran away. The next morning, the boy and the dog woke up and
got out of bed . . .’
(Fergus D. (06) Frog Story (Dublin))
Time references may be deictic, relating to the immediate context, or
anaphoric, parasitic on an earlier specication of a time reference. In the
contextualised version of Example 7.21(b), reproduced here as 7.21(f), the
signer sets the time as ‘a long time ago’ in the rst clause and then uses a
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 165 10/04/2012 11:00

166 Irish Sign Language
pointing sign anaphorically in the second clause to refer back to that time.
The adverbial NOW in the third clause operates deictically: picking up the
time specication from the context of the act of narration.
Example 7.21(f)
PAST PAST HAVE FUNNY STORY TOPIC SMALL INDEX+c TIME LIVE
DUBLIN INDEX+c NOW LIVE WATERFORD
‘I have a funny, short story from a long time ago. At the time I was living in
Dublin. Now I live in Waterford’
(Fiona (36) Personal Stories (Waterford))
A second strategy employs zones of the signing space that conventionally
express time distinctions. Points in time may be mapped onto locations on
time lines (Brennan 1983) around the signer’s body, where the past is concep-
tualised as a line extending backwards from the signer’s dominant shoulder
while the future extends forward. The general past tense sign BEFORE,
which carries the meaning ‘in the past’, is shown in Example 7.22.
Example 7.22
Deictic distinctions about relative distance in the past, for example, may be
made by indicating distance on the time line. That is, a relationship holds
where physical distance equals relative temporal distance. However, articula-
tory constraints operate to make it impossible physically to produce signs
that are longer than arm’s length into the signing space in front of the signer.
Similarly, as Example 7.23 demonstrates, when discussing the distant past it
is not possible physically to move the arm very far beyond the signer’s head.
Instead, signers tend to tilt their bodies forward when indicating future events
and lean backwards when establishing time frames that have a ‘past-tense’
reading. We see this in Example 7.23, where the signer is leaning backwards,
and further, has squinted eyes, which serve to reinforce the temporal distance
under discussion.
BEFORE (past)
Linda (40) Personal Stories (Waterford)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 166 10/04/2012 11:00

Syntax 167
Example 7.23
This conceptualisation of time as location in space is lexicalised in
time words which incorporate movement forward like TOMORROW or
FUTURE; or backwards like YESTERDAY as illustrated in Example 7.24.
The modal verb WILL is another example of a sign where a forward move-
ment functions as a metaphor for future time. The forward movement of the
sign is sometimes accompanied by a forward lean of the signer’s torso, as can
be seen in Example 7.24(a).
Example 7.24
LONG-TIME-AGO
Senan (01) Personal Stories (Dublin)
(a) TOMORROW (onset) (b) TOMORROW (offset)
Louise (35) Personal Stories (Galway) Louise (35) Personal Stories (Galway)
(c) YESTERDAY (onset) (d) YESTERDAY (offset)
James (23) Personal Stories (Wexford) James (23) Personal Stories (Wexford)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 167 10/04/2012 11:00

168 Irish Sign Language
7.6 Constituent order and simultaneity
Word order in ISL is determined by the interaction of a number of interlock-
ing principles. Two of the most important are a topic-comment structure
at the level of information structure and a subject-verb-object order at the
level of grammar. These two principles may coincide to produce the same
order since, as in many languages, the selection of topics and of subjects is
inuenced by similar principles of animacy, empathy and viewpoint. As when
discussing agreement morphology in Chapter 5, it is useful when discussing
word order to distinguish between types of verb, for example between person
and location agreement verbs. In the former, the verbal arguments represent
the range of semantic roles that may be grouped into the two macro-roles of
actor and undergoer (Dowty 1991; Foley and Van Valin 1984). Typically the
actor role includes the roles of agent and experiencer; while the undergoer
role includes patient, recipient and stimulus. The default mapping between
semantic and grammatical roles in ISL transitive clauses is for the actor role
to be subject and the undergoer role to be object. This is realised in the basic
order of subject-verb-object, as in Example 7.25.
Example 7.25
(a) YOUNG GIRL HUG GRANDMOTHER
‘The little girl hugs grandmother’
(ISL elicited sentence 14)
(Leeson 2001: 86)
(b) GIRL WATCH TV
‘The girl watches TV’
(Leeson 2001: 160)
As discussed in Chapter 2, the use of two signing hands means that simul-
taneous constructions are employed in a range of contexts. This process
means that information about constituents can be distributed across the
(e) FUTURE (f) WILL
Annie (26) Personal Stories (Wexford) Peter (18) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 168 10/04/2012 11:00

Syntax 169
signed sentence. For instance, in Example 7.26, the object nominal ‘string’ is
introduced before the verb and recapped by a classier handshape during the
articulation of the verb. In an example like this, linear order is only part of
the syntactic construction.
Example 7.26
GIRL WOMAN STRING s.t.r.i.n.g. d CUT-WITH-SCISSORS
nd CL.G. string_________
‘The woman cut the string’
(Leeson 2001: 88)
In location verbs the verbal arguments represent a dierent range of semantic
roles, including source, path, goal and the moving item which is variously
called theme or gure (Foley and Van Valin 1984; Talmy 1985, 1988). Here
one typical mapping between semantic and grammatical roles is for the theme
role to be subject and the goal role to be object, once again giving a basic
order of subject-verb-object as in Example 7.27.
Example 7.27
These basic orders are exible and may be altered by a range of discourse-
based processes, as in Example 7.28 where a goal argument, SHOP, occurs
rst because the signer has for discourse reasons identied it as a topic.
Example 7.28
SHOP (-sl) MAN V-CL+(c+MOVE+sl+fingers move)
‘The man walked to the shop’
(Leeson 2001: 89)
Topics are marked by non-manual features. The main features arising in
prototypical topic marking are a slight head tilt back, raised eyebrows during
the articulation of the topic sign, followed by a head nod. However, these
non-manual features do not appear in all instances and it seems that it is male
signers that are more likely to mark topics in this way (Leeson 2001; Leeson
and Grehan 2004). It is also possible for the topic to be followed by a slight
DRIVE+f HOME+f
‘(I) drove home’
Fergus D. (06) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 169 10/04/2012 11:00

170 Irish Sign Language
pause (Leeson 2001; Leeson and Grehan 2004). Topics may be any argu-
ment of the verb or an adjunct external to the main predication, as shown in
Example 7.29.
Example 7.29
(a)
______br
COLLAR d CL.G+invert position (‘turn-up-collar’)
nd CL.G+invert position (‘turn-up-collar’) . . .
‘You take the collar and turn it up . . .’
(Leeson 2001: 229)
(b)
t
TEACHER (-fr) ALL BOY c+MOCK+fr
‘The teacher, all the boys mocked’
(McDonnell 1996: 156)
(c)
_____________________________br /eb/
____________________________htb
COMPARE TO OTHER COUNTRY FOR EXAMPLE FINLAND INDEX+r
‘Compare this to other countries, for example, Finland’
(Leeson 2001: 228)
The role of topics in discourse is discussed in Chapter 8.
Passive constructions also involve a change in basic word order, along with
other features. In the passive sentence in Example 7.30, the actor argument
is omitted while the undergoer argument occurs in initial position. The fore-
grounded undergoer is co-referential with the signer’s locus (the ‘c-locus’).
The signer’s averted eyegaze signals lack of volition or co-operation on the
part of the undergoer.
Example 7.30
ME BEFORE-BEFORE BEAT-Upc. (eyes averted)
‘I was beaten up’
(Leeson 2001: 301)
Simultaneous constructions are particularly common with location verbs, espe-
cially where a spatial relationship links two entities. Here a number of factors
including animacy, viewpoint and empathy motivate the selection of one entity
as more prominent and thus represented on the dominant hand, while the less
prominent or backgrounded entity is signed by the non-dominant hand. Often
the backgrounded entity is introduced as a topic, before the spatial relationship
is depicted. For instance, in Example 7.31, a location, the bridge, is rst estab-
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 170 10/04/2012 11:00

Syntax 171
lished by the dominant hand. Thereafter in the portrayal of their interaction,
the dynamic entity, the car, is represented on the dominant hand while the more
static item, the bridge, is signed on the non-dominant hand.
Example 7.31
ROAD BRIDGE-extend-from-sl-to-sr CAR
d. CL.B-vehicle+go-under-bridge
nd CL.B. (be-located-at-c.+hi.)-bridge
Theme 1/ Location Agent/ Agent-Verb-Location/ Location
‘The car goes under the bridge’
(Leeson 2001: 108)
Finally, ISL sentences when connected in discourse are frequently charac-
terised by the omission of contextually available arguments; thus a nominal
argument may be introduced and thereafter be understood over a sequence
of clauses, especially if the argument occupies the same semantic slot in the
clauses, as in Example 7.32.
Example 7.32
______sobs
GIRL LOOK NOT HAPPY/ WANT BEAR r/s CL.V.+ LOOK-AT
______eyes on rabbit
CL.B EXAMINES RABBIT
‘The girl did not seem happy. (She) wanted (her) bear. (She) looked at the rabbit,
examining him while crying’
(Leeson 2001: 99–100)
Here a single occurrence of GIRL is the subject of a string of successive verbs:
LOOK NOT HAPPY, WANT, LOOK AT and EXAMINE. Simultaneously,
information about the girl’s action is given by non-manual features.
7.7 Complex sentences
7.7.1 Co-ordination
ISL has the lexical connectives AND, OR and BUT, although as we will
see in Chapter 8, these linking devices are often replaced in discourse by
other strategies, involving simultaneous constructions. When clauses are
conjoined by AND there may be omission of repeated elements, for instance
in Example 7.33 we can identify three clauses, where the second clause
AND WHITE BEAR is interpreted as ‘and the white bear was asleep’,
and the third clause, also elliptical, is simply adjoined in what we can call
parataxis.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 171 10/04/2012 11:00

172 Irish Sign Language
Example 7.33
LITTLE GIRL ASLEEP/ AND WHITE BEAR/ IN GIRL HOUSE
‘A little girl was asleep along with a white bear. (They slept) in the girl’s house’
(Leeson 2001: 171)
Parataxis, the juxtaposing of clauses without subordinating one to another
or using overt connectives is a common strategy in ISL as in Example
7.34.
Example 7.34
ME ARRIVE+a / JOB gone // SOMEONE sr +GO-TO +a. COMPLETION JOB
‘I arrived. The job was gone. Someone went there and got the job’
7.7.2 Clause combining
Clauses can be combined by subordination when a clause appears as the
object of a verb in another clause, as in Example 7.35, where INDEX+sr.
GROW-UP IN AMERICA is the object of KNOW just as a nominal might
be.
Example 7.35
. . . MY FATHER KNOW INDEX+sr. GROW-UP IN AMERICA . . .
‘. . . My father knew that he (his grandson) was growing up in America . . .’
(Leeson 2001: 89)
This kind of clausal subordination commonly occurs in spoken languages
with verbs of communication, such as English say. This is much less common
in ISL because, as will be described in Chapter 8, reported talk is commonly
depicted using surrogacy, where the signer’s body is a surrogate for another
character. Here the third person becomes rst person and can communicate
directly.
Clauses may also be combined by a process of fusion where two clauses
share the same argument, for instance in Example 7.36 where the object ‘him’
of the rst verb is the unexpressed subject of the second verb, producing an
‘overlapping’ argument.
Example 7.36
________ee
FATHER sl+TEACH+sr TALK+
‘My father taught him (his grandson) to talk’
(Leeson 2001: 97)
ISL has lexical signs that function as subordinating conjunctions like
BECAUSE (Example 7.12 earlier), BEFORE and UNLESS. However in
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 172 10/04/2012 11:00

Syntax 173
many cases the linking relation is implied rather than stated, as in Example
7.37.
Example 7.37
sl
BOY EAT+sl ALL+sl FINISH+sl sl+GO-TO+fr
‘When the boy had eaten everything, he went outside’, lit. ‘The boy ate
everything. He went outside’
(McDonnell 1996: 327)
When clauses are combined there may be formal signs of subordination. So,
for instance, in Example 7.38, the subject of the subordinate clause ‘she’ is
downgraded by being held on the non-dominant hand, rather than signed by
the dominant hand.
Example 7.38
dh: sl+TELL+c GO-HOME
nd: INDEX+sl__________
‘(She) told me that she was going home’
A complex ISL construction that consists of a sequence of a question and
answer has counterparts in other signed languages, such as Australian Sign
Language (Auslan: Johnston and Schembri 2007), that have been identied
with spoken language pseudo-clefts, like English What I’ve come here for
is my money. This English sentence contains a partition between assumed
or presupposed information (I’ve come for something) and new asserted
information that is the focus of the sentence (the something = my money).
An ISL example using a question-answer exchange is given in Example
7.39.
Example 7.39
(a) YOU COME HERE WHAT FOR
‘What are you doing here?’
(b) I COME HERE WHAT-FOR I TEACH A CLASS
‘What I’m here for is to teach a class’1
(Ó Baoill and Matthews 2000: 184–5)
The non-manual features associated with the apparent question part of this
construction are raised eyebrows and a backward tilt of the head, together
with a slight pause. Since these features resemble the features marking topics,
as we shall see below, and also since this construction is not interpreted as a
question, it seems reasonable to follow Johnston and Schembri’s analysis for
Auslan of a complex sentence rather than a sequence of sentences.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 173 10/04/2012 11:00

174 Irish Sign Language
7.8 Conclusion
In this chapter we have described some important aspects of ISL sentence
structure. While, as we noted, the study of ISL syntax remains at a preliminary
phase, we have outlined the main syntactic categories and seem something
of how phrases and clauses may be combined. We looked at how negation is
marked and how pronominal and temporal references are signalled in sen-
tences. It is clear that constituent order is signicant both for signalling the
default mappings between semantic arguments and syntactic positions and
for variations on these to reect the discourse functions marked by topic and
passive constructions. As the discussion of topic shows, the investigation of
sentence structure can only ever be partial in the absence of consideration of the
discourse context. In the next chapter we look at discourse level structures and
processes, and in particular examine the important roles played by simultaneous
constructions.
Note
1. Ó Baoill and Matthews (2000: 185) give the translation ‘I have come here
to teach class’. They use the term ‘rhetorical question’ for this ISL con-
struction, as do Baker-Shenk and Cokely (1980) for similar constructions
in ASL. However, it seems clear that these sentences are functionally dis-
similar to standard rhetorical questions, which, roughly speaking, have
the eect of asserting the negation of the question apparently being asked.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 174 10/04/2012 11:00

8 Discourse
8.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses discourse features at both the macro, interactional
level and the more micro, discourse-internal level. For the former we concen-
trate on the participants’ processes of managing conversational interaction:
the signalling of turn-taking, topic maintenance and politeness. For the latter
we are concerned with discourse cohesion. Picking up on topics from earlier
chapters, we discuss the use of space, of deictic systems and of discourse
connectives in the maintenance of the common ground of the conversation.
Finally we broaden the discussion to consider forms of talk in ISL, and spend
some time looking at the establishment and maintenance of cohesion across
stretches of discourse.
8.2 What we know about discourse in signed languages
Relatively little has been written about discourse structure in any signed
language. Work includes material on American Sign Language (Dudis 2004;
Janzen 1998; Liddell 2003; Roy 1989). For British Sign Language, Morgan
(1998) has looked at aspects of adult discourse and used this to compare
and contrast for child language acquisition pathways of certain structures
(for example, role-shifting mechanisms). More recently, there has been work
that has looked at a range of features occurring in Swedish Sign Language
(Nilsson 2007, 2010), including the use of the non-dominant hand to main-
tain referents through use of fragment buoys and theme buoys (following
Liddell 2003). Nilsson also looks at instances where the non-dominant hand
mirrors an activity on the dominant hand, termed ‘mirroring’, or where the
non-dominant hand remains in the signer’s lap, labelled ‘in-lap’.
Work on discourse in Irish Sign Language is still in its early stages, but
some research exists, which we draw on here. Leeson (2001) looked at how
discourse topics are used in a range of ISL data and made a rst inroad
into exploring aspects of simultaneous patterning in the language. Saeed
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 175 10/04/2012 11:00

176 Irish Sign Language
and Leeson (2004) looked more closely at the interaction between discourse
functionality and information structuring, identifying tendencies for the dis-
tribution of more or less animate entities on the dominant and non-dominant
hands. Later work built on this and looked at the signer’s representation
of conceptual space in signing space, and particularly, the development of
megablends through layering of event spaces on signing space, with a great
deal of inferencing required of the interlocutor in order to track the intended
referents across the discourse (Leeson and Saeed 2007). Other discourse-level
analyses include consideration of the functionality and distribution of theme
buoys and fragment buoys in ISL (Leeson 2010; Leeson and Saeed 2010).
These are issues we return to below.
8.3 Managing conversational interaction
Given that signed languages are visual languages, it comes as no surprise that
in order to engage in conversation, there is a need to ensure that the interlocu-
tor is looking at the addressee. Around this basic requirement, a number of
rule-governed behaviours have developed that underlie gaining attention and
turn-taking.
8.3.1 Gaining attention
One of the strategies for gaining a desired interlocutor’s attention is via use
of waving. In Example 8.1(b), the signer waves to an (o-screen) interlocutor
to get her attention. Having presumably gained the eye contact desired, she
begins to tell her story. Other acceptable means for gaining attention include
tapping the person on the shoulder, arm or knee (but never on the head) or
gaining a person’s attention by tapping the table or stamping on the oor so
that the vibrations of the movement will cause them to look up, and identify
their would-be interlocutor. Other allowable means include asking another
person to function as an intermediary in getting someone’s attention, because
you have their visual attention and they are nearer to the intended interlocu-
tor. This can be done by asking them to tap the desired addressee and direct
their attention to you or using the same ‘tap on shoulder’ gesture to gain an
interlocutor’s attention, as illustrated in Example 8.1(a)–(c).
Gorbet and Wilcox (2010) note that for American Sign Language (ASL)
and Italian Sign Language (LIS), there is a process in play that has led to
nonverbal communication that is gestural in nature becoming linguistic.
Discussing the shoulder-tap, they speculate that the gestural origins fore-
shadow the articulation of signs used to gain attention. We can see this
pattern in ISL where, for example, the sign ANNOY (or BOTHER) in
Example 8.1(d) shares the same handshape and movement as for GET-
ATTENTION-OF, but the location for articulation is on the surface of the
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 176 10/04/2012 11:00

Discourse 177
non-dominant hand, though, as in the example below, this can also move
upwards to the location associated with TROUBLE. The use of the arm as
a semantic eld for concepts associated with ‘trouble’ stems probably from
the action of police (and in former times, also teachers) physically taking
someone by the arm when they are doing something they are not supposed to
do. Hence, the signs for ARREST, TROUBLE, PROBLEM, POLICE and
PRISON are all articulated at the same location on the upper part of the arm
on the ipsilateral side of the signer’s body.
Example 8.1
Matthews (1996b) notes that the creation of vibration is used as a means of
getting attention: as noted above, this can include tapping or banging on a
table or a banister, or stamping one’s foot on a wooden oor. Where the
attention of a larger group of people is required, mechanisms such as ash-
ing lights on and o are frequently utilised (for example, in classrooms with
deaf/hearing students or at Deaf community events). Flashing lights are also
used to gain the attention of a single person working in an oce environment
(a) GET-ATTENTION-OF (b) GET-ATTENTION-OF+sr
Fergus D. (06) Personal Stories (Dublin) Marian (16) Personal Stories (Dublin)
(c) GET-ATTENTION-OF+f (d) BOTHER/ANNOY
Helen (27) Personal Stories (Wexford) Valerie (12) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 177 10/04/2012 11:00

178 Irish Sign Language
(ibid.), with a function more or less equivalent to knocking on the door of
a hearing person’s oce, that is the ashing light signies that someone is
present and has entered the person’s space.
The context of communication also impacts on turn-taking in conversation.
Turn-taking is quite formalised in ISL, especially in groups, where signers
signal a wish to participate by gesture and tend to wait for compliance, pre-
dominately signalled by eyegaze. Van Herreweghe (2002) discusses turn-tak-
ing in Flemish Sign Language and contrasts sign language meetings with those
involving spoken language users. The dierences can cause diculties when
signers and speakers interact in meetings, using interpreters. Deaf signers are
impeded in gaining turns by speakers’ willingness to over-lap and self-select
without tacit approval. Describing sign language meetings, she notes:
eye gaze proved to be an extremely important and powerful regulator by
which the current speaker selected the next speaker. A person could self
select in all-sign meetings by waving a hand, indexing, lightly touching
the current speaker on the arm, rapping the table, stretching out a 5 clas-
sier handshape (with the palm away from the speaker and the ngers
up, just above the table), or asking another participant to warn the
current speaker that the person wants the next turn. However, whoever
self-selected as next speaker got the oor only when the current speaker
(and not the chairperson) looked at him rather than at any of the other
participants. So self-selection in all-sign meetings was never pure self-
selection because the current speaker still had the power to allocate the
next turn by means of eye gaze. (Van Herreweghe 2002: 98–9)
This characterisation ts meetings between ISL users equally well.
8.3.2 Cultural and linguistic politeness
Lane et al. (1996) note that the rules of politeness in the American Deaf com-
munity dier from those of the hearing community. Examples include what
they call ‘the requirement for frank talk’ (73). They note that
hinting and vague talk in an eort to be polite are inappropriate and
even oensive in the DEAF-World [. . .] A principle of etiquette in the
DEAF-World seems to be ‘always act in a way that facilitates com-
munication’. Hence, blunt speech is not rude, but sudden departures,
private conversations, and breaking visual contact are. (73–4)
This also holds true for Irish Deaf people. Matthews (1996b: 15) notes that
‘The style of conversation may appear very direct’, with conversation aimed
at distinguishing deaf people from hearing people, identifying the schools
attended by participants (traditionally, the deaf schools, and contempora-
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 178 10/04/2012 11:00

Discourse 179
neously, whether one attended a school for the deaf, mainstream school or
something in-between), establishing who has Deaf relatives, and for hearing
signers, who taught them to sign. Foley-Cave (2003) likens the Irish Deaf
community to a small town where Deaf people take an interest in the detail of
events in their community, and this links also, we suggest, to another feature
of Deaf culture: the requirement for reciprocity which holds that individuals
help others in their community, to the point where if they consistently make
themselves unavailable, they will not be party to assistance from the commu-
nity as a result (Mindess 1999). This principle may, we suggest, include the
expectation that interlocutors reveal personal information about themselves.
For interpreters, Mindess suggests that signed language skills are seen as
coming from the Deaf community, and as a consequence, interpreters are
expected to ‘give back proportionally to the community’ (115). Thus Mindess
suggests that Deaf communities are collectivist cultures, and as such, impose
tight boundaries on membership of the community, are ercely loyal to that
community and invest a great deal of time in the community. Identication
with the group is valued highly, and ostracism is the worst punishment for a
group member. While signed language use is a necessary condition of group
membership, it is not sucient in and of itself. Some degree of hearing loss
is necessary for full membership, though the degree of hearing loss is consid-
ered irrelevant (Matthews and Foley-Cave 2004). A key requirement is ‘atti-
tudinal deafness’, which entails self-identication as a member of the Deaf
community and recognition of that membership from other members of the
community (Baker and Padden 1978). This social context underlies notions
of politeness in ISL conversation.
For Irish Sign Language another consideration for polite behaviour
includes knowing the dierence between public signing and private signing: if
the articulation of signs is faster than normal or the signing space is smaller
than usual, then the probability is that a private conversation is ensuing and
it is considered rude to eavesdrop (Matthews 1996b). Signing while chewing
gum, eating sweets, or having something in one’s mouth (for example, a pen)
is considered rude, particularly by older signers, at least in part because such
behaviour interferes with use of NMFs. Matthews and Foley-Cave (2004: 81)
list behaviours that are considered to be impolite in Irish Deaf communica-
tion. They include:
· ‘Listening in’ on a signed conversation without joining in.
· Staring.1
· Poking someone with an object such as a pen to gain their attention.
· Signing while someone else is signing. Appropriate turn-taking is highly
regarded.
· Placing your hands on someone to stop that person signing, which they
compare to placing your hands over someone’s mouth whilst that person
is speaking.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 179 10/04/2012 11:00

180 Irish Sign Language
· Holding an object such as a cigarette, knife, fork or pen in your hand while
signing. This is also distracting as it interferes with clear communication.
· Averting eyegaze from the signer whilst participating in a signed conversa-
tion: it denotes lack of interest in what the person has to say.
· For hearing signers to speak while there are Deaf people present, thereby
excluding the latter from the conversation.
8.4 Discourse cohesion
Discourse is of course more than a sequence of well-formed sentences.
Pragmatics research in various theoretical approaches has revealed how lan-
guage users cooperate in establishing and maintaining shared conversational
goals and a common ground (Stalnaker 1974) of shared assumptions. Every
language, it appears, oers its users resources to distinguish between shared
assumptions and new information; to vary perspective on events; to structure
a narrative; and to show empathy with certain participants in scenes. In this
section we look at some of these resources in ISL. These include the use of the
signer’s body to alter perspective on an event, the use of simultaneous con-
structions to background or foreground aspects of a piece of discourse (for
example, through use of buoys), the use of body-partitioning, as well as the dis-
course use of conjunctions such as BUT, AND, THEN, etc. We begin by con-
sidering the role of embodiment in ISL discourse management.
8.4.1 Embodiment and perspective: signer’s viewpoint is privileged
Cognitive linguists, for example Johnson (1987) and Lako and Johnson
(1999), have emphasised the role of the human body in the formation of lin-
guistic concepts. In this view, embodiment – the physical experience of being
in the world – underpins a range of linguistic systems such as spatial preposi-
tions, and the metaphorical mappings between, for example upright stature
and success, moral strength, etc. We can see a discourse example of this in
ISL where signers exploit a relationship between narrative perspective and the
position of the signer’s body: signers present what is before them at c. locus
as the most focused elements in a discourse (Leeson 2010). Other less salient
information is presented more distantly from the signer’s body. Janzen (2010)
describes similar behaviour in ASL as a form of metaphor: ‘spatial distance
is conceptual dierence’. In such instances, signers present items that are con-
sidered to be conceptually distant from each other as being physically distant
in signing space, and those that are considered to be conceptually similar or
identical at adjacent points in space, or the identical point in space.
The privileging of signer perspective can be identied in the tendency to
encode actor-led activity on the signer’s body (that is, signer = actor), where
the action is led by the signer (as him- or herself, as narrator or, as we shall see,
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 180 10/04/2012 11:00

Discourse 181
as a character in a role shifting). It can also be identied in the privileging of the
undergoer role in functional passive constructions. In such instances (as dis-
cussed in Chapter 7), the signer’s body is that of the undergoer of an action (as
opposed to the more typical signer’s body = actor in an event) and this serves
to foreground the experiencer of the event, and background the actor for a
range of purposes. The actor may be unknown, presumed to be shared knowl-
edge, or not required or desired to be made explicit.
What is true at the level of the clause or sentence also holds across discourse.
We nd that ISL signers encode events from their own perspective, and use
role-shifting devices to create surrogates for other protagonists whose perspec-
tive on the event is to be encoded and privileged. For example, we can consider
how characters are presented in Fiona’s (Fiona (36) (Waterford)) version of
the Frog Story in Example 8.2. The Frog Story is a picture sequence story.
Signers were shown the sequence and asked to sign the story in their own time.
The story is about a boy who has a frog that he keeps in his room in a jam
jar. He also has a pet dog. Overnight, the frog escapes, and in the morning,
the boy and his dog set out to nd the frog, encountering adventure along the
way. Here, we nd the following characters’ perspectives encoded via use of
the signer’s body as surrogate: Fiona as storyteller/narrator, the boy, the dog,
the frog, an owl and a deer. However, not all animate entities in the story are
embodied via a surrogate. For example, the swarm of bees that chase the boy
and the dog are never embodied, though formally this could be done: one bee
could be associated with the signer’s body via a surrogate blend and that bee
could stand for all bees in the swarm, as an instance of metonymy. Instead, the
swarm of bees is seen from the point of view of the boy, who is chased by the
bees. Thus, the discourse strategy reects the signer’s decision to foreground
the experience of the most human-like entity, in this instance the boy.
In other parts of the story, this is not the case. In escaping from the swarm
of bees, the boy and his dog literally run into a deer. The deer has large antlers
and the boy becomes entangled with them. The deer is embodied (that is,
encoded on the signer’s body), and the event is momentarily viewed from the
perspective of the deer who now has the boy caught on one antler (presented
by a CL-Legs-handshape on the dominant hand, articulated at the side of
the signer’s head, commensurate with the location for the deer’s left antler).
Indeed, in this case, there is a two-fold view on the event. First, we have the
deer’s view on the event: the signer’s body now equals the deer’s body. Body
partitioning is also in evidence. The signer’s body is the deer’s body; the sign-
er’s face is the deer’s face; the signer’s non-dominant hand is the deer’s antler
and the signer’s dominant hand represents the relative position of the boy
on the deer’s inferred left antler. It is the fact that the signer uses a CL-Legs-
handshape to represent the boy that shifts the coding of perspective here. While
the deer surrogate gives us an ‘on-stage’ view of the event, a life-sized render-
ing of the situation, the classier handshape presents a miniature-sized view on
the position of the boy vis-à-vis the deer. The boy is down-sized momentarily:
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 181 10/04/2012 11:00

182 Irish Sign Language
his experience of the event is downgraded for now, until the signer’s body is
again equated with his experience in a subsequent surrogate.
 Example 8.2
8.4.2 Event spaces
One way of describing the narrative techniques discussed above is to say that
signers establish event spaces and that these spaces function as the realisa-
tion of conceptual space: how the signer conceives the event conceptually
is mapped onto the signing space. Signers introduce referents within these
spaces and track them across discourse through a variety of devices including
the use of space to represent physical or abstract relationships between enti-
ties and concepts, pronominal referencing, the use of surrogates and inferen-
tial relationships. As we shall see, signers also build on spaces: event spaces
are layered, with inferential links between them, and these links contribute
to discourse complexity, and, as suggested by Nilsson (2010), text density.
Further, signers present dierent views of events, which Liddell (2003) talks
about as ‘on-stage’ and ‘o-stage’ views. That is, when the signer presents
a view on an event from his or her core perspective, that is as narrator, or
through use of the signer’s body as a surrogate for another (typically animate)
entity, he or she is selecting a particular viewpoint and ‘forcing’ the viewer to
see the event from that perspective. It may also be the case that there is a link
between evidentiality and point of view, with a stronger commitment to the
truth of a described event being associated with the use of surrogates. That is,
it might be the case that a signer chooses to use a surrogate when he or she is
committed to or has rst-hand experience of the event being described.2
The sophistication of signers’ use of event spaces can be seen in the short
section of narrative shown in Example 8.3, an excerpt from a rendition of
the Frog Story. In 8.3(a) we see the signer introduce a participant, an owl,
by using a lexical item. In (b), she embodies the owl via a surrogate, thus
promoting the owl’s viewpoint on this event at that point in the narrative. A
shift back to the perspective of the boy occurs in the next clause (c), where
Deer surrogate blend. Deer surrogate is ‘on
stage’ view; boy on antlers is ‘off-stage’ view.
Fiona (36) Frog Story (Waterford)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 182 10/04/2012 11:00

Discourse 183
the signer lexically reintroduces the boy. She then presents a surrogate of the
boy. From this viewpoint, we see a ‘life-sized’ enactment of the boy falling
backwards. The boy is startled and steps backwards, and in (d), the boy is
embodied, and looks upwards at the (inferred) owl’s locus. Here, it is also
interesting to note that the signer rotates signing space 360 degrees: the posi-
tion of the owl is the same as that of the boy. The cue to interpreting the
rotated positions of the owl and boy is eyegaze. The owl looks forward when
ying out of the hole in the tree while the boy looks upwards towards the pre-
viously established position of the hole that the owl has emerged from. Thus,
as in Example 5.2 on the war in Iraq that we looked at earlier in the volume,
we see further evidence of layering spatial information or ‘mental spaces’,
where interlocutors have to be able to manage multiple levels of information
that when combined, create what has been termed a megablend (Fauconnier
and Turner 2002).
 Example 8.3
(a) OWL (b) Surrogate-OWL
Fiona (36) Frog Story (Waterford) Fiona (36) Frog Story (Waterford)
(c) BOY (d) Surrogate-BOY-LOOKS-UP (toward owl)
Fiona (36) Frog Story (Waterford) Fiona (36) Frog Story (Waterford)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 183 10/04/2012 11:00

184 Irish Sign Language
8.4.3 Deictic systems
We have seen that signers may describe the actions of others by representing
them through the medium of their own body, that is, as if they are represent-
ing the action or perspective themselves. Another way of stating this is to say
that the signer can, through use of a surrogate blend, present other viewpoints
in an embodied way. In other words, the world is viewed through the eyes of
signer and presented through the signer’s body. This narrative strategy can be
seen as one of a range of devices that alter or switch the default deictic devices
of the language, to reect the signer’s discourse goals.
8.4.3.1 Reference shifting in action and dialogue
As we have seen, in Irish Sign Language the signer locus may be used to refer
to a non-rst person referent. This feature has been reported for a variety of
signed languages and has been referred to as role-playing (Meier 1990), role-
shifting (Padden 1990), role-switching (Mandel 1977) and referential-shift
(Poulin and Miller 1995). More recent work from within a cognitive linguistic
framework has referred to such shifts in foregrounding of characters associ-
ated with the signer’s body as instances that make use of what is termed
surrogate space and in turn, contribute to surrogate blends. In doing this,
the signer, adopting the role of a character in an event, engages in displaced
action or dialogue, which has also been termed constructed action and con-
structed dialogue (Metzger 1995, 1999; Tannen 1989).
When a surrogate is used, the signer typically breaks eye contact with the
addressee and in addition non-manual features may change, though this
seems not to be obligatory. Sometimes body position is adjusted, with the
signer rotating the shoulders to the left or the right. This seems to be more
marked in certain settings, particularly those where there are a larger number
of participants. In such instances, the signer’s torso can rotate to mark a
referential shift, probably a function of the fact that he or she may need to
be visible to a larger audience, for example at a conference. In less-populated
settings, eyegaze along with a slight inclination of the head can mark such
a shift. These dierences in usage may or may not have so much to do with
the formality of the event as with the number of participants by whom a
signer has to be clearly viewed. It may be that instead of being a corollary of
formality, a highly visible referential shift may be a function of the fact that
the signer wishes to have his or her dierentiation of characters more clearly
viewed by the interlocutors in large-scale multi-party interactions than in
smaller-scale events.
Engberg-Pedersen’s (1993) analysis of Danish Sign Language reveals three
distinct ‘reference shifting’ structures that may have dierent functions.
She notes that these structures can co-occur, but equally, they can occur in
isolation:
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 184 10/04/2012 11:00

Discourse 185
1. Shifted reference: pronouns are used from a quoted sender’s point of view.
This term is reserved for reported speech.
2. Shifted attribution of expressive elements: the signer uses his/her body and
face to express the mood or attitude of a referent other than the signer.
This structure is not limited to a reported speech function, but can also be
found in reports of a person’s thoughts, feelings or actions.
3. Shifted locus: this structure is unique to signed languages because of their
spatial parameters. This structure is used when signers use their own locus
(c-locus) to represent someone other than the signer’s thoughts/actions, or
where they use a locus other than the c-locus to represent the signer.
In these instances, signers can manipulate use of pronominal referencing
systems to foreground another referent’s perspective; they can manipulate
non-manual elements to add an aective (and sometimes humorous) dimen-
sion to their discourse, and signers can also rotate their body toward the
locus associated with the intended referent in order to inhabit their locus
and ‘become’ the other person. In this way, a signer can present the views of
another person as rst person rather than reporting their speech as occurs in
English. Another way of saying this is that the signer embodies the perspec-
tive of the intended referent by inhabiting their locus for the duration of their
contribution in the discourse.
In Example 8.4(a) we see a constructed dialogue: here the signer is recount-
ing an interaction with her young daughter who is looking for something.
The story teases out what the hearing toddler daughter is trying to ask for,
and the diculty the mother has in guring that out. Here, she presents a sur-
rogate for her 3-year-old, who gestures something that looks like BICYCLE
while mouthing ‘big ladder’. (It turns out that she has seen the back of an
old chair and thinks of it as her ‘ladder’.) The discourse works through the
signer’s dialogue with her daughter, with the signer also representing herself
in the time frame of the event via a surrogate. Taking an Engberg-Pedersen
analysis, we can say that this is example shows shifted reference (that is,
reported speech), shifted attribution of expressive elements (the facial expres-
sion and mannerisms of a 3-year-old), and shifted locus (identied prima-
rily via shoulder shift towards +sl in signing space and eyegaze towards
+sl, where +sl is the locus for the mother in this discourse, as indicated in
Example 8.4(b).
In Example 8.5(a) the signer is describing how some ex-mainstreamed deaf
people might volunteer to participate in committee work in the Deaf com-
munity. An ‘ex-mainstreamer’ is a term used in the Deaf community to refer
to deaf people who spent part of their educational lives in mainstream educa-
tion programmes rather than attending a school for the deaf. Some ex-main-
streamers engage with the Deaf community and learn ISL, but their position
within the community is sometimes marginal/ised, sometimes as a result
of attitudes held towards them by some members of the Deaf community.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 185 10/04/2012 11:00

186 Irish Sign Language
Example 8.4
In 8.5(a), we see a surrogate for an unspecied person, who represents any
ex-mainstreamed deaf person who is involved in the Deaf community. In
terms of constructing action, the signer puts her hand in the air, a gestural
representation of the act of volunteering. As in all discourse, she had a range
of choices to draw from, including options that would have lexically reported
on the action (for example, SOME VOLUNTEER), but instead opted for
constructed action which serves to foreground the perspective of the ex-
mainstreamed person. If we were to apply Engberg-Pedersen’s analysis, we
could note that there is no evidence of shifted reference here: there is no
reported speech in this instance. We do nd shifted attribution of expressive
elements (the aect is that of the unspecied actor(s)) and shifted locus (the
signer shifts towards +sr to represent the views of the ex-mainstreamed deaf
people, which contrasts with the +sl locus associated with the Deaf commu-
nity viewpoint).
Example 8.5
(a) Constructed dialogue. (b) Constructed dialogue.
A surrogate for Michelle’s young daughter A surrogate for Michelle’s response
(a) Constructed action. A surrogate for a (b) Constructed action. A surrogate for a
potential ex-mainstreamed deaf volunteer potential Deaf community response
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 186 10/04/2012 11:00

Discourse 187
8.4.3.2 Body partitioning
Paul Dudis (2004) has described the processes that ASL signers employ to use
simultaneous constructions that, from an articulatory perspective, subdivide
the body (including eyegaze and mouthing) to represent a number of dierent
actors at the same time and from a cognitive perspective, create ‘megablends’
combining previously established blends in discourse. He shows how a sign-
er’s narrative goals interact with the physiological limits of signing to aect
the construction and ow of a signed language narrative. Dudis suggests that
signers frequently establish simultaneous blends by assigning dierent body
parts to separate blends in order to overcome such constraints, leading to a
range of narrative strategies that signers can draw on.
Example 8.6 provides an example of body partitioning in ISL. Here the
signer, recounting the Frog Story, makes use of surrogate space to embody
the perspective of the boy, who is asleep in bed. His non-dominant hand is the
boy’s, holding the bed covers to his chest. The ‘invisible surrogate’ (Liddell
2003) here is the bedcover. His dominant hand presents a dierent element:
through use of a CL-Legs-handshape, the signer represents the relative posi-
tion of the dog lying on the bed. Not only does his dominant hand represent
a dierent entity, but he also combines a token space, mapping it onto surro-
gate space. That is, while the surrogate presents a real-world-sized represen-
tation of a human in an imagined bed (signer’s body, non-dominant hand),
the dominant hand presents a miniature representation of the relative size
of the dog vis-à-vis the boy. This instance of body partitioning thus presents
both an on-stage (boy) and an o-stage (dog) viewpoint.
 Example 8.6
Later in this chapter we will look at further instances of body partition-
ing and its role in discourse. First, we will look at more general features of
discourse structure.
Body partitioning: BOY (in bed) and DOG
(CL-Legs (on bed))
Sean (Dublin) Frog Story
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 187 10/04/2012 11:00

188 Irish Sign Language
8.4.4 Explicit establishment of discourse topics
Discourse level topics serve to introduce the theme of the discourse and
establish the major focus for discussion and in this sense, we could say that
these topics really are ‘what the discourse is about’. In the stories in the SOI
corpus ISL, there is a strong tendency for signers to explicitly introduce
a discourse topic. This may be an artefact of how the data were collected:
signers were asked to tell us a story about a topic of their choosing, so given
this condition, it is perhaps not surprising that many of them open their per-
sonal stories by explicitly giving an indication of discourse topic. It is prob-
able that in extended discourse streams, where signers shift topics, not every
new discourse topic would be overtly marked in this manner. Having said
this, explicitly referenced discourse topics are a feature of ISL. Before we go
on to look at some ISL examples, we should say a little about the term ‘dis-
course topic’. Brown and Yule (1983) criticise early denitions of discourse
topicality as over-generalised and over-simplied. They instead adopt a
hypothesis that ‘there is a specic connection between “discourse topic” and
“discourse content”. The former can be viewed, in some sense as consisting
of the “important elements” of the latter’ (107). An explicit discourse topic
streamlines the addressee’s task of identifying this relation. For instance, in
Example 8.7, the signer introduces his monologue about a car that needed
some extensive repairs by saying that he will tell us about his car, while in
Example 8.8, the signer introduces a current aairs piece about the war in
Iraq in the same manner: he explicitly states that he is going to talk about
that topic.
 Example 8.7
INDEX-me ABOUT MY CAR CAR
BEFORE YEARS-AGO
dh: ABOUT FIVE YEAR AGO INDEX-me BUY SECOND h.a.n.d. CAR
INDEX-me
nd: (Theme buoy)
INDEX-me LOVE CAR INDEX-me DRIVE FOR FAMILY
HAVE SEVEN SEAT ONE-BEHIND-THE-OTHER
DRIVE YEARS
OVER-A-PERIOD-OF-TIME-TO-NOW DAY
DRIVE-AROUND
UNTIL RECENTLY
ABOUT TWO THREE MONTH AGO . . .
‘I’m going to tell you about my car. About five years back, I bought a second-
hand car. I loved this car and used it as the family car. It was a seven-seater. I
drove the car for years without any problem until recently. Then about two or
three months ago . . .’
(Fergus D. (06) Personal Stories (Dublin))
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 188 10/04/2012 11:00

Discourse 189
 Example 8.8
ME EXPLAIN ABOUT i.r.a.q.
RECENTLY A-LOT-OF WAR
INDEX+f START WAR REALLY HAPPEN BEFORE-BEFORE
AROUND 1990 1991
i.r.a.q. JUST ONE DAY c+cl-5-OPEN+F ‘GRABBED’
dh: Cl-b + SMALL-CIRCLE-ON-MAP-AT-SOUTH –OF-LOC.
nd: CL-C ___________________________________________
k.u.w.a.i.t. ‘GRAB’ TAKE-OVER
WEST WORLD AMERICA ENGLAND u.k. LIST ANGRY 2h CL-5 ‘CONFLICT’
THAT TIME k.u.w.a.i.t.
‘I’m going to talk about Iraq. There has recently been significant outbreaks of war
in Iraq, but to understand the crux of the issue, one must look back to circa
1990–1 when Iraq, without warning, invaded Kuwait. At that time, the Western
powers (including America and the United Kingdom) responded by entering into
a war over Kuwait’
(Senan (01) Personal Stories (Dublin))
Leeson (2001) also notes that explicit discourse topics do not only occur at
the outset of a narrative: they also seem to serve as signposts to the addressee
that the signer is about to change the focus of the story somewhat. It may
be that such markers are pragmatic and more typical of narrative monologues
that are signed to camera for an unknown audience in order to maximally
clarify the ordering of the discourse. Further research is needed to explore this
point. Examples 8.9 and 8.10 show the explicit marking of topic shift.
Example 8.9
NOW EXPLAIN FOUR POINT VERY IMPORTANT
‘Now I want to discuss four points which are very important’
(Informant B: conference presentation: ‘IDS Archives’)
(Leeson 2001: 238)
Example 8.10
LOOK FOR BICYCLE
‘(We arrived on the Aran Island) and began to look for bicycles’
(Informant N: Horizon footage)
(Leeson 2001: 238)
Example 8.9 occurs in the middle of a presentation to a Deaf audience. The
presenter is discussing the grammatical features of ISL, and draws the audi-
ence’s attention to the fact that she will next introduce four salient points for
their consideration. She does this through use of what we will describe below
as list buoys, introducing each element through use of an ordinal number
on the non-dominant hand (FIRST, SECOND, etc.) and then discussing
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 189 10/04/2012 11:00

190 Irish Sign Language
the element on the dominant hand; if we adopt Janzen’s (1999) thesis, these
ordinal number signs function as discourse-cohesion topics.
Discourse topics frequently occur at the outset of narrative monologues,
but they are not obligatory there. Leeson (2001) also identies narrative mon-
ologues that do not begin with the explicit establishment of discourse topics,
but which rather set some of the background contextualising conditions of
an event or set of events that will be recounted. These include Examples 8.11
and 8.12.
Example 8.11
LITTLE GIRL ASLEEP
‘A little girl was asleep’
(Informant G: narrative)
(Leeson 2001: 240)
Example 8.12
ME COME FROM DEAF FAMILY MOTHER-FATHER DEAF . . .
‘I come from a Deaf family. My parents are Deaf . . .’
(Informant C: Angry Silences footage)
(Leeson 2001: 240)
However, the use of discourse topics at the outset of narrative monologues
does seem to be more typical in the ISL data examined. Another important
point to consider is the information status of discourse topics. Unlike sen-
tence topics discussed in Chapter 7, explicitly stated discourse topics do not
introduce given or old information, or information that is backgrounded as
opposed to foregrounded (Givón 1984). Nor do they follow the given-new
pattern described by Chafe (1994). Janzen (1999) suggests that such explicit
discourse topics include the kind of information that is not within the con-
sciousness of the signer at the time of utterance, but is accessible: ‘that is, the
signer must assume that the addressee can identify the information in these
topics as accessible to ground the information contained in the comment’
(277).
Such information can be pragmatically derived. It can, for example, draw
on presumed shared knowledge of a shared culture or worldview. This is
clearly what the signers in the examples above are doing: grounding the infor-
mation they are about to share in an accessible manner before discussing the
details or elaborating on the issue in the comment.
8.4.5 Specic time reference in discourse
Structurally time phrases may act like explicit discourse topics. It has been
suggested that ISL utilises ‘specic time reference’ (Leeson 1996), following
Jacobowitz and Stokoe (1988) (for ASL), recognising the fact that ISL does
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 190 10/04/2012 11:00

Discourse 191
not mark tense on the verb, as is the case in languages like English. Instead,
a signer marks the time period that contextualises the discourse at the outset
and this time frame remains in place until the signer explicitly changes it.
Generally discourse unmarked for time is interpreted as being located at
speech act time. This can be considered the default setting for present time
reference. Examples 8.9–8.12 illustrate this default setting.
Specic time references parallel discourse topics in a number of ways, for
example both serve to establish the context for the discourse that follows.
Furthermore, when a topic or specic time reference has been introduced,
both remain until the signer explicitly alters them. Returning to Example
8.7, we can see that the signer follows the introduction of his discourse
topic by setting the time frame for the purchase of his car (ABOUT FIVE
YEAR AGO), and then tells us that he has been driving the car for some
time (YEARS-GO-BY // DRIVE // UNTIL RECENTLY // ABOUT TWO
THREE MONTH AGO . . .). Then, we nd that all information subsequently
presented is relative to the discourse time established, in this case the unfold-
ing of the story from two to three months ago when he started experiencing
problems with his car. In Example 8.8, we nd the same kind of nesting of
specic time reference occurring after the establishment of the discourse
topic. Here, the signer tells us that while there had recently been an outbreak
of war in Iraq (circa 2003), the root of the current situation could be traced
back to a previous war, in the early 1990s. The rest of the segment about the
invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, and the response of the Western nations to the
crisis, all occur in the same time frame that the signer has established. That is,
if we did not interpret the text subsequent to the introduction of 1990, 1991 as
occurring in that time frame, we would assume that the default time frame is
unmarked time and interpret this as something happening ‘now’ or, given our
access to world knowledge, might infer that the events reported were associ-
ated with a current war in Iraq.
8.4.6 Discourse use of connectives
Irish Sign Language makes use of lexical conjunctions and connectives such
as AND, BUT, IF, SO, THEN and NEXT. These connectives guide the
addressee in making the intended connections in the discourse. Example
8.13(a) shows how AND is used to group related concepts (three men, in
this instance), while 8.13(b) shows how AND is used to link sentences (how
a group of friends did something the next day). The use of BUT in ISL is
demonstrated in Examples 8.13(c) and (d). In (c) we nd BUT used to make a
contrast, and focus emphasis on the post conjunctive element: ‘. . . but of my
seven sisters . . .’. In (d) we see the same kind of structure arising, with BUT
used to signal the contrast in ‘all three of them were hearing but I was the only
deaf person amongst them’. In ISL, the use of BUT in both instances seems to
identify the contrast in order to convey the signer’s attitude to the situation
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 191 10/04/2012 11:00

192 Irish Sign Language
described. Examples 8.13(e) and (f) illustrate use of IF in ISL. In (e) the signer
notes that if hearing people experience problems with their houses (that is,
electrical problems), then they can phone someone. Here the Deaf signer’s
experience of house-building issues is contrasted against a possible world
and the dierences experienced by deaf and hearing people when faced with
diculties. Example 8.13(f) also sets up a possible scenario, this time the situ-
ation is a description of past experience: the signer suggests they liked it when
(IF) lots of visitors came by. In 8.13(g) and (h) we see instances of the use of
THEN, a connective that marks a temporal sequence, cause–eect relation-
ships between segments of discourse, and may signal topic shifts. In (g) we see
the sequence interpretation of THEN: Rebecca tells a story about how her
dog, Polo, went missing. After much searching, she decides to tell her parents
that they must call a radio station and THEN (when they get through on the
phone), tell them the dog’s name etc. In the run-up to 8.13(h) Frankie signs
that she and two other women and four nieces and nephews went shopping.
She notes that they were strolling along, with a buggy in tow, and THEN (or
subsequently) looked into a shop. The THEN marks both temporal sequence
and a shift to a new episode in the story: she enters the shop and tells how the
children wanted to hold everything, especially fragile items, in the shop, and
how ultimately she ended up buying the children decorative butteries.
Example 8.13
(a) . . . e.a.m.o.n. AND s.e.a.n. AND MY HUSBAND . . .
(b) INDEX+sr FRIEND INDEX+f AND NEXT DAY INDEX+f
(c) BROTHER ALL HEARING BUT SISTER SEVEN SISTER . . .
(d) ALL-OF-THEM THREE HEARING BUT ALONE DEAF CL-ISL-L-bent ME
(e) FOR EXAMPLE HEARING PHONE IF PROBLEM HOUSE . . .
(f) USE TO LIKE IF LOT VISITOR INDEX+fr+c ‘COME HERE’
(g) TELL MOTHER^FATHER HAVE TO RING RADIO THEN TELL INDEX+fr+hi
NAME DOG . . .
(h) 2 x CL:A ‘PUSH-PUSHCHAIR-BRISKLY’ THEN LOOK IN TO SHOP
It is worth noting the relative frequency of connectives in the SOI corpus:
of 46,499 tokens, there are only eight instances of THEN, forty-eight
instances of AND, ninety-three instances of BUT, fourteen instances of IF
and no instances of SO (though this lexical sign is also used in discourse in
ISL). This suggests that while lexical signs do function to mark discourse
relations there must be other devices that perform the range of functions that
lexical connectives serve in a spoken language like English. In the coming
sections, we look at some of these.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 192 10/04/2012 11:00

Discourse 193
8.5 Simultaneous constructions and discourse structure
Simultaneous articulation is a hallmark of signed languages, and this is espe-
cially true of discourse level phenomena. In this section, we focus specically
on the functionality of the non-dominant hand in creating and maintaining
discourse structure. Early work on simultaneity in signed languages included
work by Chris Miller (1994: 8) who discusses the variety of simultaneous
strategies, including:
1. Two hands producing two dierent lexical items simultaneously
2. Preservation of one sign on one hand while the second hand articulates a
series of other signs
3. Production of the ‘topic’ on one hand while the ‘comment’ is articulated
on the second hand
4. Placing a sign articulated on the dominant hand on or in relation to an
enumeration morpheme, which is expressed by the non-dominant hand
(we might refer to this as a ‘listing’ strategy).
5. One hand represents the locative position of one argument while the
second hand represents the relative locative position of the second
argument.
This range of strategies is also found in ISL discourse (Leeson and Saeed
2007; Saeed and Leeson 2004), and we have outlined some of the clausal or
sentential level simultaneity that occurs in ISL in Chapter 7. Here, we want to
consider more closely the more macro-level instantiations of simultaneity that
arises. To do this, we will draw on Scott Liddell’s (2003) categorisation of the
range of functions of the non-dominant hand. These include (1) list buoys,
(2) fragment buoys, (3) theme buoys and (4) pointer buoys. We will also look
at the use of signer strategies to ‘stage’ (following Grimes 1975) or create epi-
sodes within discourse by returning their hands to their laps (Nilsson 2008,
2010). Following Anna-Lena Nilsson, we call this simply, ‘in-lap’.
8.5.1 Foregrounding and backgrounding strategies
Leeson and Saeed (Leeson and Saeed 2007; Saeed and Leeson 2004) looked
at the role of simultaneity in foregrounding and backgrounding elements
in discourse. This work proposed a general principle for simultaneity in
ISL: that the dominant hand marks foregrounded material while the non-
dominant hand marks backgrounded material. Another way of stating this
is that the choice of what to articulate on which hand is based on principles
of the windowing of attention (Talmy 1996). Talmy notes that ‘Language
aords the speaker alternatives of attentional windowing upon essentially
the same event frame, with the addressee feasibly able to infer the dierent
gapped portions for each alternative so as to reconstruct back to the same
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 193 10/04/2012 11:00

194 Irish Sign Language
single event frame’ (260). Thus signers can choose to place focus on one
element in isolation while gapping certain information. They can establish
a chronological relationship between one element and the next, and, like
speakers of any language, place greater focus on one element than on others.
But compared with speakers of a language, signers have access to a wider
range of simultaneous strategies. The outcome seems to be that information
that could be gapped in spoken discourse is maintained, though often back-
grounded, in ISL in line with Talmy’s suggestion.
A number of tendencies follow from the general principle of simultaneity,
for example that the dominant hand will be used to mark the most animate
element while the non-dominant hand marks a less animate element; or, for
example, that the dominant hand will mark the most active element while the
non-dominant hand represents a less active or dynamic element. We can see
some examples of these by looking in some detail at Example 8.14.
 Example 8.14
(a) AREA-OF-SMALL-LAND-UNDER-IRAQ (b) WHOLE-AREA-OF-IRAQ
‘Kuwait is a small country situated to the south ‘Iraq itself’
of Iraq’ (Senan (01) Personal Stories (Dublin))
(c) HALF-AREA-OF-IRAQ (d) A-PART-FROM-RIGHT-SIDE-OF-IRAQ-
‘partitioned Iraq’ TO-LEFT-SIDE-OF-IRAQ
(Senan (01) Personal Stories (Dublin)) ‘the partitioned zone’
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 194 10/04/2012 11:00

Discourse 195
In Example 8.14(a) we see the signer introduce the relative geographical
position of Kuwait vis-à-vis Iraq from the point of view of someone looking
at a map. Here, his non-dominant hand is functioning as a placeholder for
Iraq’s position while the dominant hand foregrounds the position of Kuwait.
In the piece, the signer holds the nd hand in place while locating and intro-
ducing Kuwait.
In Examples 8.14(b)–(d), the signer’s non-dominant hand is again a place-
holder for Iraq. At this stage in the story, the United Nations has declared the
northern territory a ‘no-y zone’. Here, the signer does several things. First,
his non-dominant hand is in the space that has previously been established as
co-referential with Iraq from the point of view of one looking at a map, in this
case, the signer’s viewpoint. We see that his non-dominant hand represents
the extent of Iraq’s geographical terrain so that his ngers are commensurate
with the most northerly tip of Iraq and the base of the hand is commensurate
with the most southerly part of the country. In Example 8.14(c), his domi-
nant hand partitions o the top portion of the non-dominant hand using a
B-handshape. This serves to function as a representation that the northern
part of the country was conceptually partitioned and named as a no-y zone,
dividing the hand in two parts which equate with the two sections of Iraq
– the north and the south. The signer subsequently renes the extent of the
partitioned zone in Example 8.14(d) where he traces a path across the perse-
verating non-dominant hand with the thumb and index nger of his dominant
hand. This serves to demarcate the mid-hand area as being the no-y zone
and maps onto the geographical domain from a topographical viewpoint. In
8.14(e), the signer reinforces the fact that in this partitioned area, Iraqi planes
were not allowed to y. In this case, we see that a layering of inferential infor-
mation comes into play: the non-dominant hand continues to maintain the
(e) PLANE-FLY-FROM-WEST-SIDE-TO- (f) ENTER-IRAQ-SIMULTANEOUSLY-FROM-
EAST-SIDE-OF-IRAQ ‘the area where planes TURKEY-AND-KUWAIT ‘(The plan) was to
could not fly (or ‘the no-fly zone’)’ invade Iraw via Turkey, from the north, and
Kuwait, from the south’
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 195 10/04/2012 11:00

196 Irish Sign Language
B-handshape, representing the whole of Iraq. However, the audience now has
to map-in mentally the information from the last piece of discourse, the fact
that the central zone was a no-y area. The signer’s dominant hand now is
active, tracing the area where planes could not y. In 8.14(f) we see that the
non-dominant hand no longer perseverates a B-handshape to maintain the
position of Iraq. While the point of view remains that of a person viewing
a map of the situation, here, we have to again mentally map-in the position
of Iraq, and also access previously established information about the geo-
graphical positioning of Turkey and Kuwait with respect to Iraq. With these
notions activated in the discourse, we can make sense of the information in
(f) which tells us that the allied forces planned to invade Iraq via the northern
and southern borders (via Turkey and Kuwait) simultaneously.
This close analysis of Example 8.14 shows both the sophistication and
uidity of the simultaneous strategies and the important role of inference in
the interpretation.
A second general principle at work is iconicity. The choice of what is
represented on the dominant and non-dominant hands may be dictated by
the actual positioning of entities in the real world, modelled in topographic
signing space. This is very clearly evidenced in the ‘war in Iraq’ narrative, and
further, it is clear that there is a relationship between how signers conceptu-
alise these relationships and then demonstrate these relationships in signing
space. We could add that because of the visual nature of signed languages,
the relationship between conceptualisation of space and articulation of how
things are related to each other in space is perhaps more readily identiable
than for speakers of languages.
In the next sections we look at two other important other roles of the non-
dominant hand in discourse, in-lap and mirroring, using two monologues
from the SOI corpus, both presented by the same signer (SOI-36). We can
call the rst the Motorbike Story;3 the second is a version of the Frog Story,
as outlined earlier in this chapter.
8.5.2 Marking episodes: in-lap
While the position of the signer’s non-dominant hand in the signer’s lap has
been considered for Swedish Sign Language (Nilsson 2010), there does not
seem to have been much attention given to date to the functionality associ-
ated with both of the signer’s hands in the lap position. In ISL, monologues
typically commence and end with the signer’s hands in the in-lap position,
and some signers seem to mark episodic boundaries by returning their hands
to the lap position. Thus in this example of the Frog Story the signer opens
her narrative with her hands in the in-lap position. She then introduces the
main protagonists in the Frog Story: the boy, the dog and the frog. She
establishes the scene in the boy’s bedroom, locating the relative positions of
the boy (in his bed), the dog and the frog. Then she tells us that the boy is
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 196 10/04/2012 11:00

Discourse 197
a pet lover, enacts the boy petting the dog and then brings her hands to the
in-lap position again. This opening sequence thus introduces key referents
and gives us some context for the opening scene of the story. Following this
second use of in-lap, the signer recounts the story of how the frog escapes
and the ensuing adventures of the boy and his dog as they seek to nd the
missing frog.
 Example 8.15
A number of factors may contribute to the use of in-lap as an episodic
marker in some contexts but not others. These include the proximity of the
topic to the signer’s own experience, for example whether the story being told
is about his or her own experience or an event he or she personally witnessed.
Conventionality is also a factor, where a clear episodic structure may trigger
the in-lap marker as a delimiting device.
8.5.3 Marking emphasis: mirroring
Mirroring occurs when a normally one-handed sign is ‘mirrored’ or repeated
on the non-dominant hand (Liddell 2003). In ISL, we see many instances
of mirroring that seem to function as markers of emphasis. For example,
in the Motorbike Story, the signer signs WHAT-IS-THIS, a normally
one-handed, informal sign (and historically, also a male sign) on both the
dominant and non-dominant hand at an early stage in her story when she is
leaving her parents’ house with the motorbike and something seems wrong,
but she cannot see any problem (Example 8.16(a)). What is interesting here
is not just the doubling of hands, but the fact that the non-dominant hand
(her right hand – she is a left-handed signer) remains at the locus associ-
ated with one of the motorbike handles. In her previous utterance, she has
signed DRIVE MOTORBIKE. She then maintains the non-dominant hand
‘In-lap’
Fiona (36) Frog Story (Waterford)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 197 10/04/2012 11:00

198 Irish Sign Language
in position while she signs INDEX-ME. In the next section we will describe
this action of the non-dominant hand as a fragment buoy. This is followed by
WHAT-IS-THIS on both the dominant and non-dominant hands. What we
might have expected is that the non-dominant hand would have maintained
the fragment buoy as a placeholder for her position on the motorbike at this
point, but instead, we see a doubling of the hands, which serves to mark that
she is really giving due attention to the fact that something seems awry. We
can compare this with 8.16(b) where the signer retells the interaction she has
with her inspector at work who asks what she is doing with a dirty hosepipe.
Here, again, we see mirroring on the non-dominant hand, but here the sign
is echoed with the same orientation, which is a more expected outcome. In
Example 8.16(c) we see the ‘typical’ one-handed rendition of the sign, for
comparative purposes.
 Example 8.16
8.5.4 Buoys
Liddell (2003) describes buoys as signs produced by the non-dominant hand
that are held in a stationary conguration as the dominant hand continues to
produce signs. Buoys typically represent discourse entities and can be pointed
at and have verbs and pronouns directed towards them (that is, they can be
referential). Semantically, buoys ‘help guide the discourse by serving as con-
ceptual landmarks as the discourse continues’ (223). Thus they can function
as discourse markers. Liddell identies a range of buoys for ASL discourse
including fragment buoys, theme buoys, list buoys and pointer buoys, which
we discuss in turn.
8.5.4.1 Fragment buoys
Liddell (ibid.) suggests that when a one-handed sign follows a two-handed
sign, it is common for the weak hand to maintain its conguration from
the preceding two-handed sign, and these are known as fragment buoys.
(a) Mirroring – reversed palm (b) Mirroring – same orientation (c) One-handed articulation of
orientation on non-dominant of palm on non-dominant hand WHAT-IS-IT (OR WHAT-FOR)
hand with a fragment buoy on the
Fiona (36) Personal Stories dominant hand
(Waterford)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 198 10/04/2012 11:00

Discourse 199
For ASL then, perseveration of the weak hand into the succeeding one-
handed sign is reported (248). Fragment buoys are created by associating the
meaning of a sign with all or part of its nal state of production. In ASL, the
signer can point at the fragment buoy to refer to the entity is stands for or
to reactivate it in the discourse. In ISL, fragment buoys also serve to guide
the interlocutor with respect to the signer’s perspective. The fragment buoy
held on the non-dominant hand is less-focused information (or ‘old’ informa-
tion) than whatever the signer is discussing on the dominant hand (Leeson
and Saeed 2007; Saeed and Leeson 2004). As the material held on the non-
dominant hand is backgrounded while the material on the dominant hand is
proled, we can suggest that the distribution of information on the dominant
and non-dominant hands also tells us something about the salience of the dis-
tribution of material from the signer’s perspective: we suggest that fragments
also tell us something about embodiment. In these stories, fragments are of
physical entities or entities that are held or handled, which may of course be
a function of the genre of the material considered here. The fragment buoys
that arise represent physical appendages – arms, hands, paws, antlers, etc.
Often the intended referent is not the physical appendage that the fragment
represents, but an inferred item associated with it, typically previously explic-
itly introduced in the discourse: for example, we see instances as in Example
8.17(a) where the fragment is the signer’s arm, but the intended referent is the
(invisible) hosepipe that is held wrapped around her arm. Another example
comes from Fiona’s rendition of the Frog Story where her hand is the frag-
ment which, by association, stands in reference for the frog who is now in a
glass jar that the boy holds in his hand – Examples 8.17(b) and 8.17(c).
In 8.17(b) we see the signer provide a prole of the glass jar that holds the
frog. She outlines the size and shape with the dominant hand while the
 Example 8.17
(a) Signer’s non-dominant hand is a (b) Signer’s non-dominant hand is a
fragment that stands as a placeholder for fragment that provides a profile of the
the hosepipe on her arm glass jar holding the frog
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 199 10/04/2012 11:00

200 Irish Sign Language
non-dominant hand serves as a landmark for the proled event as well as
serving as the boy’s physical hand in surrogate space (that is, the signer takes
the point of view of the boy here). In (c), the non-dominant hand is serving
as a fragment buoy, a place-holder which, through the process of holding,
also evokes the associated inferred referent, the glass jar (which is held in
the boy’s hand). It is also part of a partitioned surrogate here (it is the boy
who is holding the glass jar). It is also worth noting that the glass jar is intro-
duced using the productive lexicon (size and shape speciers) rather than the
established lexicon. Thus it is not possible to suggest that this is a normally
two-handed sign in ISL.
In 8.17(d) we see a more expected form of fragment buoy arising: the non-
dominant hand holds a fragment of the two-handed sign DEER, represented
via the metonymic sign which represents the deer’s antlers. This sign arises as
part of a surrogate buoy: the signer is presenting this part of the story from
the point of view of the deer. At the same time, an ‘o-stage’ view is also
presented: the dominant hand represents the boy, caught on the deer’s antler.
Here, the boy is represented by the CL-Legs-handshape, held against the
deer’s head. Clearly the boy is not ‘life-sized’ here, in contrast with the ‘on-
stage’ view associated with the deer, presented in surrogate space. Further,
we can point out that this example of a fragment buoy is embedded in an
instance of body partitioning: the non-dominant hand and body are associ-
ated with the deer’s perspective while the dominant hand is associated with
the boy’s position. Here it is ambiguous as to whether the signer’s mouth
gesture and eyegaze are to be read as co-occurring with the deer or the boy’s
perspective, though Dudis (2004) suggests that the mouthed elements are typ-
ically associated with the point of view of the non-surrogate element, which
in this case would be the boy’s perspective, while the eyes are associated with
the referent represented in the surrogate.
In ISL, while we nd that more commonly fragment buoys may be the
(c) Signer’s non-dominant hand maintains (d) Signer’s non-dominant hand holds a
the fragment profiling the glass jar holding fragment of the two-handed sign, DEER
the frog Fiona (36) Frog Story (Waterford)
Fiona (36) Frog Story (Waterford)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 200 10/04/2012 11:00

Discourse 201
remnants of two-handed signs, one-handed signs can also be held. Typical
candidates for fragment buoys in ISL are articulators that represent real-
body parts (human or animal) in fragment buoys, for example fragments
representing how something is handled. Such use of fragments may oer us
some insights into how body partitioning is arranged and the constraints
that operate. These elements, which are ‘fragments’ of the conceptual picture
that perseverate, are often embodied in relation to a surrogate, for example a
hand. These might be crucial markers of focus from the signer’s perspective.
An example is the hosepipe in the Motorbike Story, which ‘disappears’ while
the signer’s hand functions as a placeholder for it. Such instances demon-
strate that the fragment is presenting backgrounded, old information, but
that this is not redundant information: the ongoing discussion is predicated
on the presence of the hosepipe on her arm. Given this, we can say that in
ISL fragment buoys may be either the maintenance on one hand of a two-
handed sign (as where the MOTORBIKE is maintained on one hand as a
fragment) or, perhaps less frequently, one-handed signs may be articulated
on the non-dominant hand and maintained in a backgrounded manner for
the same purpose.
8.5.4.2 Theme buoys
A theme buoy signies that ‘an important discourse theme is being discussed’
(Liddell 2003: 242). In such instances, the non-dominant hand (or ‘weak
hand’ in Liddell’s terminology) maintains a one-handed conguration with
the index nger elevated horizontally as the other hand produces an inde-
pendent sign. Typically, the signer produces a sign related to the description
of a theme of the discourse with the dominant hand while the non-dominant
hand maintains the elevated index nger. Thus theme buoys can extend
across a number of signs, but there are also instances of theme buoys that
last for shorter instances, which as we shall see below also seems to have
signicance.
We might also see a signer point while introducing a character in a story to
identify this character as a signicant discourse theme.4 Liddell (ibid.) notes
that ASL signers who say they do not use the theme buoy themselves under-
stand it and explain that ‘it means that this is what the signer is talking about;
that one must not forget’, ‘keep to it’ and that ‘this is the theme’. Given this,
theme buoys help us to identify the essential aspects of discourse.
In ISL, theme buoys have two main functions: (1) to introduce and estab-
lish certain elements in discourse and (2) to introduce some new information
where new referents are articulated by one-handed signs; or, as in Examples
8.18(b) and (c), a theme buoy can occur in some two-handed signs where
signers can still process the intended meaning of the sign despite the degraded
phonology of the non-dominant hand arising because the non-dominant
hand takes on the phonology of the theme buoy with the result that the
produced sign diers quite markedly from the citation form. In contrast,
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 201 10/04/2012 11:00

202 Irish Sign Language
the theme buoy is not maintained to introduce two-handed referents like
REINDEER, where the articulation of the two-handed sign could not be
recovered together with maintenance of a theme buoy.
Example 8.18
In Example 8.18(a), we see that BEE is introduced on the dominant hand
(and subsequently a swarm of bees), while the theme buoy is articulated on
the non-dominant hand. In (b), the signer signs MOTHER – which is nor-
mally a two-handed sign, articulated here on the dominant hand while the
non-dominant hand maintains the theme buoy handshape. In the discourse,
this is immediately followed by a similar articulation of FATHER (mother-
father frog . . .), a seeming breach of Battison’s (1978) symmetry principle,
discussed earlier in Chapter 4. However, it seems that the breach of this pho-
nological principle is permitted by the language because the place of articu-
lation and the orientation of the palms remain as in the intended sign. This
would also account for why two-handed signs like DEER cannot be modied
to integrate a theme buoy in the same way.
However, it is not just symmetrical two-handed signs that can co-occur
with a theme buoy in ISL. In Example 8.18(c) the signer signs IN, a normally
two-handed sign where the dominant hand takes an I-handshape and the
non-dominant hand takes a U-handshape. However, here the non-dominant
handshape is not as expected. The signer maintains a theme buoy, but as
with MOTHER, FATHER in (b), this does not seem to render impossible
interpretation of the intended lexical item. As noted, IN does not usually
have a symmetrical production of dominant and non-dominant hands, sug-
gesting that it is also possible in certain circumstances to breach Battison’s
(ibid.) dominance constraint. This suggests that discourse requirements can,
in certain contexts, supersede certain phonological requirements. Equally, it
could be that there are no other signs like IN that are articulated with these
(a) Theme buoy on non-dominant (b) Theme buoys maintained in (c) Theme buoy maintained in
hand (right hand) and BEE discourse on non-dominant hand discourse on non-dominant hand
introduced on dominant hand and MOTHER articulated with (left hand) while articulating a
Fiona (36) Frog Story (Waterford) dominant hand variant of IN
Fiona (36) Personal Stories Fergus D. (06) Personal Stories
(Waterford) (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 202 10/04/2012 11:00

Discourse 203
handshapes in this space that could be confused by this alternative articula-
tion. Either way, we can see clearly that in ISL, where the place of articula-
tion of two-handed signs is in neutral space, and where the palm orientation
of the non-dominant hand in the articulation of sign is downward, a theme
buoy can be maintained, replacing the expected non-dominant handshape
associated with the sign. This seems to be in line with Liddell’s (2003) ndings
for ASL where the theme buoy can also serve as the base hand in an asym-
metrical sign. However, it diers from the situation described for Swedish
Sign Language (Nilsson 2007, 2010) where theme buoys disappear when the
signer produces a two-handed sign.
In considering the duration of theme buoys in discourse, we nd many
examples where the theme buoy is maintained across a body of discourse.
For example, in the Motorbike Story, the signer’s non-dominant hand holds
the theme buoy across the establishment of context for the Motorbike Story.
It remains in place while she tells us that she used to get up at 5.30 a.m. and
had to travel some distance to work. This is crucial in setting the scene for
the story.
Another Example (8.19) comes from the Frog Story, where the signer
maintains the theme buoy across a piece of discourse while signing. All of this
is occurs in the search for the frog, and arises as the penultimate encounter
prior to discovering the frog. The use of the theme buoy here seems to serve
to keep us on track; this information is relevant to the nal outcome of the
story’s theme.
Example 8.19
DOG FACE BREAK GLASS CROSS GIVING-OUT-TO-DOG CAREFUL/ LOOK
FOR FROG WALK-OVER TO FIELD FAR-AWAY *DOG STARING-AT BEE
*HIVE
‘The dog broke the glass with his face. The boy was cross with the dog and gave
out to him (chastised him), and told him to be careful. They continued to look for
the frog. They walked quite some distance to a field. There, the dog stood staring
at a bee-hive’
(Fiona (36) Frog Story (Waterford))
While the extension of an index nger is typically understood as being ana-
phoric, representing (depending on the direction of the pointing) rst or non-
rst person referents or indeed a locative point, the theme buoy does not seem
to be anaphoric in nature despite sharing the characteristic of extended index
nger. Instead, it seems that while the dominant hand takes responsibility
for anaphoric referencing to track pronominals in the discourse, the non-
dominant hand’s theme buoy does something else, or something in addition
to this. In Example 8.19, the signer’s dominant hand produces an anaphoric
pointing sign, which is co-referential with the +sr space, while the non-
dominant hand maintains the theme buoy position. The theme buoy then
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 203 10/04/2012 11:00

204 Irish Sign Language
is maintained in neutral space, regardless of the referent tracking activities
mapped by the dominant hand. This serves to reinforce our understanding of
the theme buoy as serving to bring attention to the importance of the current
discourse for the overall discourse topic.
Example 8.20
To summarise, we can say that when theme buoys have a shorter life in
terms of articulation time, they seem to be associated with the introduction
of new information. Where theme buoys are extended, co-occurring with
longer stretches of discourse, they are associated with the theme or topic of
an utterance. We also note that, unlike some other signed languages, it seems
that theme buoys in ISL can perseverate across subsequent two-handed signs
as long as the phonological status of the two-handed sign can be reconciled
with the maintenance of the buoy. This seems to entail that the two-handed
sign is articulated in neutral space and that the orientation of the palms is
downward.
8.5.4.3 List buoys
Saeed and Leeson (2004) describe the use of listing strategies (Miller 1994) for
ISL, which have been more recently described for ASL as ‘list buoys’ (Liddell
2003). Miller (1994) describes listing strategies as involving a sign articulated
on the dominant hand on or in relation to an enumeration morpheme, which
is expressed by the non-dominant hand. Liddell (2003) describes list buoys as
being produced by the non-dominant (or in his terminology, ‘weak hand’),
which serves to provide a physical presence to ordered sets. The signer lists
entities on his or her non-dominant hand. Further, list buoys are generally
produced with the same hand conguration as the corresponding numeral
sign, but they are produced on the non-dominant hand and are oriented
Dominant hand produces anaphoric
pointing sign while non-dominant hand
maintains a theme buoy in neutral space
Fiona (36) Frog Story (Waterford)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 204 10/04/2012 11:00

Discourse 205
dierently than numeral signs, with a more horizontal orientation of ngers
(Liddell et al. 2007: 189). In Example 8.20(a), we see the signer present a
list buoy. Listed entities are typically identied by pointing or touching the
non-dominant hand with the dominant and providing a lexical sign or nger-
spelling. Saeed and Leeson (2004) suggest that such list buoys function as an
episodic marker. List buoys are found in several signed languages, though in
some they may be a feature of more formal discourse (Ingram 2000 for ASL).
In ISL, such listing strategies also occur, though, as can be seen in Examples
8.20(a)–(c). List buoys do not seem to be obligatory, but instead provide
another means to signers for considering how to frame discourse.
Example 8.21
(b) d HAVE HOT d.o.g. CHICKEN BURGERS HAVE
nd FIRST _________ SECOND _________THIRD
‘They have hotdogs, chicken and burgers’
(Informant data: female informant aged 25–35 years, deaf siblings and
partner; dialogue: The ABC of ISL footage)
(Leeson 2001: 47)
(c) d IF ANYTHING CROP-UP CAN USE f.l.a.r.e.s. o.r. e.p.i.r.b.
nd SECOND_________________
INDEX f.+hi. LINK WITH s.a.t.e.l.l.i.t.e. trace-with-index-finger-f.+hi.-to-s.l.+lo
TO
r.e.s.c.u.e. CENTRE
‘If there is an emergency you can use flares or an E.P.I.R.B. This is linked by
satellite to a rescue centre’
(Informant data: male aged 45–55 years, deaf sibling/s and spouse; Hands
On footage)
(Leeson 2001: 47)
(a) List buoy
Sean (13) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 205 10/04/2012 11:00

206 Irish Sign Language
In Example 8.21(b) we see an example taken from The ABC of ISL, a series
of short scenes with a language teaching aim (IDS and RTÉ) (Leeson 1997).
In this scene, the signer and her interlocutor are at a barbeque. She explains
to her friend what is available to eat. We note a very straightforward alter-
nation between the listing strategy and the introduction of the ‘new’ item.
The list is held on the non-dominant hand, suggesting that this information
is functioning as a ‘scaold’ for the new information, in this case, the foods
available at the barbeque, which are foregrounded through articulation on
the dominant hand. In (c) we see a signer presenting another list, this time a
range of strategies open to Deaf sailors in emergency situations. He ‘holds’
the strategic point that is under discussion on his non-dominant hand while
outlining what the strategy entails with the dominant hand. Again, we might
suggest that the ‘holding’ of the list seems to function as a scaold. In this
instance the ‘hold’ seems to function as a reminder to the audience that the
point under discussion is just one of a series of strategies that are available
to them in emergency situations. The emergency strategies are introduced as
new information, supported by the scaolding. Emphasising the optionality
of list buoys, Saeed and Leeson (2004) note that what we are now calling
fragment buoys may also serve to maintain reference to backgrounded
information. The list buoy can clarify the scope of the discourse since it can
serve to enumerate the number of points that will be discussed, oering the
interlocutors a well-dened frame of reference for understanding where the
discourse is going.
8.5.4.4 Pointer buoys
Liddell (2003) describes the pointer buoy as pointing towards an important
element in the discourse. This buoy diers from the list, THEME, and frag-
ment buoys because it points at an element in real space or in a real space
blend and thus does not represent the entity but points at it. The pointer is
not a blended entity and other signs like pronouns and verbs do not point at
it, which is possible with all the other buoys described thus far.
In Example 8.22, we see the signer use a pointer buoy to indicate towards
IRELAND, which he has situated on the left-hand side of signing space.
He follows this with a pointer buoy towards the right-hand side of signing
space, a space co-referential for the UK. Here, we nd a number of things
happening. In 8.22(a), the signer simultaneously articulates IRELAND on
the dominant hand while articulating the pointer buoy on the non-dominant
hand. He is pointing towards the left-hand side of signing space, which maps
the signing space to the real-world locations of Ireland versus the UK, from
the perspective of someone looking at a map. Thus there is conation of real-
world locations with conceptual uses of space. The point of view presented is
that of someone who is in-between these locations. This is interesting because
the account is of a group of young deaf people who came to a summer camp
for deaf youths, which took place in Ireland. The way the signer later talks
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 206 10/04/2012 11:00

Discourse 207
about the bonds developed during the youth camp, and the fact that the par-
ticipants were upset when they had to return to the ‘hearing world’, suggests
that he conceptualises the physical signing space associated with discussion
of the youth camp as being a place in-between, or another country: a ‘Deaf
world’.
In this instance, the pointer buoy is not anaphoric since it is not referring
back to a previously established item: it co-occurs with the establishment
of a referent, IRELAND. Instead, it positions IRELAND conceptually in
signing space, and any subsequent reference to Ireland, or activities associ-
ated with coming from or returning to Ireland, are typically associated with
that location.
Example 8.22
8.6 Summary
In this chapter we have discussed some important features of ISL discourse.
We discussed politeness and noted that there are culturally established rules
of engagement that govern the gaining of attention, engaging in signed
conversations, observing conversations and turn-taking. We have seen that
signers use a range of mechanisms to structure discourse including explicit
discourse topics, specic time references and lexical connectives. We saw that
the relative infrequency of lexical connectives is balanced by other devices,
involving in particular the signer’s uses of the non-dominant hand. These
uses act in various ways to guide the addressee through the discourse. We
considered the role of the theme buoy in introducing new information, and
maintaining focus on the discourse topic across extended pieces of text. We
saw that the fragment buoy serves to maintain and background old informa-
tion while the dominant hand brings the text forward. List buoys function
(a) IRELAND+sl (b) UK + sr
Pointer buoy towards IRELAND (+sl) Pointer buoy towards IRELAND (+sl)
and the UK (+sr) and the UK (+sr)
Sean (13) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 207 10/04/2012 11:00

208 Irish Sign Language
to structure and list-o subordinate elements associated with superordinate
concepts – for example barbeque: chicken, burgers; or children: naming each
in their birth order – as well as listing new subtopics that will be expanded
on in the subsequent discourse stream. We looked at the role of the pointer
buoy in directing attention to the positions of entities in real-world space.
We saw something of the strategies signers use to maintain reference to
entities in discourse and to shift viewpoint in a narrative. Signers exploit the
deictic resources of the language to move characters back and forth across
the stage set by the story. They employ a range of shifting devices, most
notably surrogacy, to privilege the perspective of characters other than the
narrator. Looking over these various discourse strategies reveals that, as in
all languages, ISL participants cooperate in identifying conversational goals
and establishing background assumptions. Signers rely on their addressees’
ability and willingness to make inferences in order to esh out the explicit
content into the signer’s intended meaning.
Notes
1. This of course poses some diculty for hearing people seeking to acquire
ISL and concentrating on sign formation.
2. Thanks to Prof. Terry Janzen and his class at the University of Manitoba,
Canada, for raising this possibility.
3. The Motorbike Story presents the signer’s experience of going to work by
moped in the midwinter. She tells how she prepared to leave home while it
was still dark. She turned the moped’s engine on to warm it up, and when
she went to leave, she felt that something was not quite right, but as every-
thing seemed ne, she proceeded with her journey. As she made her way
to work, she found herself being followed by a truck driver. She feared she
was going to be abducted or that there was something untoward about the
truck driver’s persistence. He frequently ashed his headlights at her, but
she did not know what he was trying to achieve with this act. At a set of
trac lights, the truck driver stopped beside her, rolled down his window
and told her to look behind her. She turned to nd that there was a 20-foot
garden hosepipe attached to her rear wheel; she had not seen it in the dark.
4. Note that this use does not mean that the character is at an indicated loca-
tion in space.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 208 10/04/2012 11:00

Towards a Cognitive Account of
9 Signed Languages
9.1 Introduction
In this chapter we return to the ideas of cognitive linguistics, which we have
touched on at several points in this volume. We will examine what light the
study of ISL can throw on important notions in this paradigm. Looking the
other way, we shall see how useful these notions are for bringing out key
features of ISL. We have, for example, touched on the role of metaphor and
metonymy in the ISL lexicon. We have also seen something of the spatial
mental models by which signers keep track of entities in discourse. Similar
spatial cognitive strategies are seen in signers’ manipulation of temporal refer-
ences. A marked feature of ISL is the extent to which the signer’s body plays a
role in a whole range of semantic and pragmatic processes, including mappings
between body partitions and elements of the discourse. Each of these charac-
teristics follows naturally from cognitive linguistics’ views of how human lan-
guages work. We look at some of these in more detail in the following sections.
We hope that this discussion will give us a chance to look back and summarise
some general features of ISL that have been described in the chapters dealing
with specic linguistic levels, and thus act as a conclusion to this volume.
9.2 Embodiment
A cognitive approach to language description views linguistic knowledge as
part of general cognition where there is no separation of linguistic knowledge
from general thinking or cognition (Lako 1987). In this way, the distinc-
tions between literal and gurative language, linguistic knowledge and
encyclopaedic knowledge are blurred or ignored. Language behaviour is seen
as a part of the broad spectrum of human cognitive abilities that allow for
learning, reasoning, etc. to occur. This dierentiates the cognitive approach
from, for example, generative linguistics, which argues that language and the
general cognitive processes dier to such an extent that a separate model is
hypothesised for language.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 209 10/04/2012 11:00

210 Irish Sign Language
Cognitivists suggest that an explanation of grammatical patterns cannot be
given in terms of abstract syntactic principles, but only in terms of speakers’
intended meaning in particular contexts of language use; they propose cogni-
tive models which structure thought. Such models, they argue, are used in
reasoning and in the formation of categories. Depending on the level of use,
concepts characterised by cognitive models are ‘embodied’ (Johnson 1987).
Embodiment is the idea is that language users’ physical experience of being
and acting in the world, of perceiving the environment, moving bodies, exert-
ing and experiencing force, etc., allows them to form basic conceptual struc-
tures which then are used to organise thought across a range of more abstract
domains. This, Lako argues, contrasts with the classical view of concepts
existing independently, removed from the ‘bodily nature and experience of
thinking beings’ (Lako 1987: 13). We saw in Chapter 7 that ISL’s temporal
concepts are rooted in the body of the signer: time is conceived as a line rela-
tive to the shoulder of the dominant signing hand: the line stretches forward
into the future and backwards into the past. We also saw that signers tend to
tilt their bodies forward when indicating future events and lean backwards
when establishing time frames that have a past-tense reading. The signer’s
body also plays an important role in information structure in discourse. In
Chapter 8 we saw the relationship that exists between narrative perspective
and the position of the signer’s body. Signers present what is before them at
c. locus as the most focused elements in a discourse while other less salient
information is presented more distantly from the signer’s body. Thus proxim-
ity to the forward orientation of the body is equated conceptually to the focus
of attention in discourse.
In Chapter 8 we saw a further way in which the signer’s body embodies
narrative viewpoint: signers may describe the actions of others by represent-
ing them through the medium of their own body. This strategy has been given
various labels, including surrogacy or constructed action. Normally of course
the world is viewed through the eyes of the signer and presented through the
signer’s body. Surrogacy allows the signer to present other viewpoints in an
embodied way. The signer’s body becomes a device to make the audience
adopt a new viewpoint for the purposes of narrative dynamism. A more
complex version of this is body partitioning, where the signer subdivides his
or her body to represent a number of dierent actors at the same time and
from a cognitive perspective, simultaneously maps whole sections of the nar-
rative onto his or her body. We will discuss partitioning a little later when we
look at conceptual blending.
9.3 Lexical concepts and real-world knowledge
As mentioned earlier, cognitive linguists have re-examined the distinction
between linguistic knowledge and ordinary, real-world knowledge. One
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 210 10/04/2012 11:00

Towards a Cognitive Account of Signed Languages 211
area of investigation is at the lexical level: the extent to which knowledge of
a word’s meaning, for example a noun like computer or whale, is related to
real-world knowledge about its possible referents. Cognitivists Evans and
Green (2006) have argued that meaning does not reside in words themselves
but in the structured contextual integration of lexical concepts and real-world
knowledge. Words, in this view, have only a potential for meaning, which
is activated in particular contexts by the process of composition from the
resources available to the participants from their lexical and encyclopaedic
knowledge. This account responds to the problem of the plasticity of word
meaning by suggesting that any one word meaning derives from a unique
nexus of various inputs. This view of online integration of lexical concepts
and real-world knowledge, following conventional procedures, gives a useful
view of the items described in Chapter 6 as part of the ISL productive lexicon.
An illustration of this is Example 5.30 from the discussion of classier
predicates in Chapter 5, repeated in Example 9.1.
Example 9.1
‘blah-blah’
. . . c.+CL.C.+move-to-mouth . . .
‘. . . I can use the radio . . .’
(Informant T: interview, Hands On footage)
(Leeson 2001: 48)
Here we see the composition of a lexical item from a number of sources. The
classier is a type of handle entity-CL, classifying entities according to how
they are manipulated by the human hand; here it is what we described as a
CL-C-handshape. The contextual information includes the movement to the
mouth and the accompanying mouthing gestures. The integration of these
with knowledge of the context, a story about Deaf sailors, and its related
real-world knowledge allows the communication of a lexical sign ‘radio’. This
view that word meaning is a compositional and one-o phenomenon ts very
well with the use of words in ISL.
9.4 Metonymy and metaphor
Metonymy and metaphor are from the cognitive perspective both instances
of analogical mapping. Metonymy maps within a domain of knowledge,
while metaphor maps between distinct domains of knowledge. We saw in
Chapter 6 how important metonymy is in ISL lexical semantics. A number of
taxonomies have been suggested for the types of association that can produce
metonymy, for example by Lako and Johnson (1980), Fass (1991), Nunberg
(1995) and Kövecses and Radden (1998). Some typical associations are part
for whole, traditionally called synecdoche; producer for product; and action
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 211 10/04/2012 11:00

212 Irish Sign Language
for agent. We saw examples of lexical signs for animals, where part for whole
metonymies allow representations of parts of the body to form signs such as
BIRD, where the part is the beak; BULL, the shape of horns; CAT, whiskers,
TIGER, stripes; GIRAFFE, long neck; and ELEPHANT, trunk. A similar
metonymic relation is exploited for activities, where a part of an activity is
highlighted to form a verb, as in DRIVE-CAR where the action of holding
the steering wheel is generalised to the manifold activity of driving.
The pervasiveness of metonymy is reected in the name signs used by
members of the Deaf community. In Chapter 7 we described how signers
identied each other by associated attributes, whether physical and there-
fore a part for whole metonymy such as PIGTAILS or RED-CHEEKS,
or by activities associated with them, such as RUB-JAW, PLAY-PIANO
or PUSH-GLASSES-UP-NOSE, which we could call an action for agent
metonymy. These metonymic names support Kövecses and Radden’s (1998)
claim of a priority for experiential and in particular perceptual motivations
in the selection of metonymic relations.
An extended gurative use of the terms DEAF and HEARING can be
likened to metonymy: where the physical attributes can be used to refer to
membership or otherwise of a culturally dened community. Thus a Deaf
person may tell another Deaf person, ‘YOU HEARING’ as an insult to
suggest that they are holding the values of the non-Deaf world above those
of members of the Deaf community. In contrast, a Deaf person may tell a
hearing person who is a uent ISL user, ‘YOU DEAF!’ to compliment them
on not only their signing skill, but also the positive views they hold towards
Deaf culture, and perhaps the fact that they have embraced the values of the
Deaf community.
Metaphor, which links dierent domains of knowledge, also plays an
important role in the formation of lexical items. Some of these reect
metaphors in other languages, for example the metaphor described by
Lako (1987: 384) for English as ANGER IS A HEATED FLUID IN A
CONTAINER which is reected in the ISL lexical metaphor that makes use
of the HEATED FLUID IN A CONTAINER metaphor, with BOILING-
IN-TORSO to mean ‘really angry’. This takes the lexical sign BOIL which is
normally articulated in neutral space and re-positions it at the signer’s body
to mean ‘I was boiling (with anger)’ This can be extended with the addition of
BOIL+move-upwards-in-torso / STEAM-COME-OUT-OF-EARS to mean
‘I boiled over and had steam coming out of my ears’, a literal translation, or
‘I was really angry’.1 Other metaphors reect the experience of Deaf signers.
A particularly important metaphor is SEEING IS KNOWING, which
reects the importance of the visual eld for Deaf signers, together with its
corollary NOT SEEING IS NOT KNOWING. These metaphors have a
grammatical reex in the use of averted eyegaze to mark the lack of volition
or control of a participant in an action, for example in passives construc-
tions (Leeson 2001; Leeson and Saeed 2003). Shifting eyegaze away from an
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 212 10/04/2012 11:00

Towards a Cognitive Account of Signed Languages 213
interlocutor is also a way of signalling a disengagement from dialogue, or
interrupting.
ISL signers frequently employ ontological metaphors (Lako and Johnson
1980) where abstract concepts are conceptualised in concrete terms. An
example is IDEAS ARE OBJECTS. The lexical sign for physically taking
hold of an object, GRASP, is shown in Example 9.2 and this sign (on
the dominant hand) has become the lexical sign for HAVE.2 In Example
9.3 we see the same handshape used in a phrase GRASP (A DEER’S)
ANTLERS.
Example 9.2
Example 9.3
This sign is used metaphorically for REMEMBER when formed at the
signer’s head, as in Example 9.4.
GRASPING ANTLERS
Fergus D. (06) Personal Stories (Dublin)
HAVE (tol hold/grasp something)
Senan (01) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 213 10/04/2012 11:00

214 Irish Sign Language
Example 9.4
Similarly, the lexical sign THROW-AWAY, used for physical objects,
shown in citation form in Example 9.5, can be used metaphorically at the
signer’s head to mean FORGET as in Example 9.6. This conception of ideas
as objects in the signer’s head also employs the BODY-AS-CONTAINER
metaphor, discussed by Lako and Johnson (1980) and Lako and Kövecses
(1987) amongst others.
Example 9.5
In another metaphor, theories or opinions are conceptualised as a FLUID, so
the same handshape used for WATER-FLOWS can, if made at the forehead,
signify THEORY or PHILOSOPHY. This sign used as a double agreement
verb can have the meaning HAVE-THE-SAME-OPINION or, to use an
English metaphor, ‘be on the same wavelength’.
A related metaphor employs a movement between CL-Bent-Index –
CL-INDEX, which is used to represent physical items that are moving. This
is particularly used to refer to something ‘popping up’ or, in context, splashes,
for example when a raindrop hits the ground and bounces o the path; or a
small entity appearing from nowhere.3 This sign is used metaphorically,
REMEMBER (GRASP-AT-HEAD)
Marion (08) Personal Stories (Dublin)
THROW-AWAY (physical entity)
Michelee (05) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 214 10/04/2012 11:00

Towards a Cognitive Account of Signed Languages 215
Example 9.6
articulated at the side of the signer’s head, to mean ‘an idea popped up in the
mind’, as shown in Example 9.7.
Example 9.7
Such ontological metaphors are very common in ISL, so for example
OPPRESSION is metaphorically conceptualised as shown in Example 9.8 as
one dominant animate entity physically pressing down on a smaller entity;
while people’s behaviour can be handled like physical objects in the lexical
verbs CONTROL, MANAGE, CO-ORDINATE and MANIPULATE.
Example 9.8
(a) OPPRESS (onset) (b) OPPRESS (offset)
Senan (01) Personal Stories (Dublin) Senan (01) Personal Stories (Dublin)
IDEA-POP-UP (GET-IDEA)
Eric (32) Frog Story (Cork)
FORGET (THROW AWAY/LOSE – AT HEAD)
Catherine (31) Personal Stories (Cork)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 215 10/04/2012 11:00

216 Irish Sign Language
9.5 Mental spaces
Fauconnier’s (1985, 1997) Mental Space Theory is a cognitive semantic
theory that began by describing the complexity of referential strategies, such
as indirect reference, shifts of reference and referential opacity, which occur
in ordinary spontaneous communication. It does this in terms of mental
models, or spaces, that communicators mutually create and manipulate.
These spaces contain representations of entities and relations currently under
discussion. New spaces are created, for example, when speakers talk about
hypothetical scenarios or events in the past. Such spaces have their internal
coherence, but are also linked to other spaces, including a link to the present
utterance space, by various linguistic devices. Although the referential strat-
egies are triggered by language, Fauconnier identies a range of cognitive
processes that are used to ‘esh out’ the under-represented meaning that the
language input provides. The theory has been extended to describe a wide
range of behaviour in spoken and signed languages. As the theory has devel-
oped, a number of cognitive processes have been identied in the use of such
spaces, including partitioning, analogy, schema induction, structure projec-
tion and conceptual blending.
All of these processes take place within the general processes of meaning
construction. Fauconnier argues that ‘language expressions’ (E) possess a
‘meaning potential’. As discourse unfolds, complex cognitive processes are
called into play. An expression thus generates meaning:
when the grammatical information E contains is applied to an existing
cognitive conguration, several new congurations will be possible in
principle (i.e. comparable with the grammatical clues). One of them
will be produced, yielding a new step in the construction underlying the
discourse. (Fauconnier 1997: 38)
Fauconnier sees this as a process in which unfolding discourse is a ‘suc-
cession of cognitive congurations’ (ibid.). He argues that each successive
cognitive conguration gives rise to the next under pressure from grammar
and context, that is, both grammar and the unfolding context aect the
interpretation of a linguistic event. Pragmatic factors may also aect the
establishment of a new conguration. He argues that as discourse unfolds,
the discourse participants metaphorically move through the ‘space lattice’,
that is, the series of connected spaces that are established to represent
the base viewpoint, conditional/hypothetical events, temporal variations,
etc. referred to in discourse. Discourse participants’ viewpoints and focus
shift as they move through the space lattice while the base space remains
accessible as a starting point for another construction. To allow dis-
course participants to nd their way through this ‘maze of mental spaces’,
and to use the partitioning of the spaces to draw appropriate inferences,
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 216 10/04/2012 11:00

Towards a Cognitive Account of Signed Languages 217
Fauconnier argues that three dynamic notions are crucial: Base, Viewpoint
and Focus:
At any point in the construction, one space is distinguished as
Viewpoint, the space from which others are accessed and structured or
set up; one space is distinguished as Focus, the space currently being
structured internally, – the space, so to speak, upon which attention is
currently focused; and one space is distinguished as the Base – a start-
ing point for the construction of which it is always possible to return.
Base, Viewpoint and Focus need not be distinct: more often than not,
we nd the same space serving as Viewpoint and Focus, or Base and
Focus, or Base and Viewpoint, or all three: Base, Viewpoint and Focus.
(49)
We have seen in the course of our description that ISL uses spatial loca-
tions as an integral part of its system of pronominal reference. Signers associ-
ate referent with points in the signing space that are termed ‘loci’. Pronominal
signs are directed to those loci to identify their referents. Liddell (2000) has
argued that when ASL signers use a similar system they are directing the
sign towards a token placed at the locus rather than the locus itself. This is
supported by the fact that under certain conditions the token may move to
another locus and still retain the referential link. It is also possible for two
tokens to occupy the same locus. Also working on ASL, Van Hoek (1996)
looks at the relationship that exists between mental spaces and referential
loci, arguing that the most salient referents are accessed even where other loci
have previously been used for pronominal reference for the same referent.
She assumes that:
loci may vary in their imagistic content; in one discourse (or at one
moment in a particular discourse) a locus may be conceived as a
detailed, highly specic mental image of the referent, and in another
discourse (or at another point in time) may be a highly schematised,
non-specic image – which includes the possibility that the image may
consist of an association between the referent and the point in space,
with no other visual-imagistic content. (234)
She goes on to develop her concept of the relationship between referents and
loci by arguing that:
these quasi-imagistic associations between referents and loci may
involve much more than simply the establishment of the referent, as
an isolated notion, with a particular point in space. Referential loci are
frequently associated with the larger ‘scenes’ or spatial settings which
the referent occupies. (234)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 217 10/04/2012 11:00

218 Irish Sign Language
Van Hoek establishes that there is a relationship between mental spaces
and referential loci. She provides evidence to support the view that the most
salient referents in a discourse event are accessed even where other loci have
previously been used for the same pronominal referent. She suggests that the
principles of locus selection in ASL seem congruent with the general prin-
ciples of accessibility that have been developed by Givón (1989) and Ariel
(1988, 1990). Crucially, she notes that:
Accessibility Theory holds that a particular nominal form is selected for
reference in a given context to reect the degree of accessibility (roughly
‘retrievability’) of the referent in that context. Cross-linguistically, full
nominals (names and descriptive phrases) are markers of relatively
low accessibility, used where the referent is not highly active in the
addressee’s awareness. Pronouns are markers of relatively high accessi-
bility and null anaphora (i.e. no phonological marking of co-reference)
marks still higher accessibility. (Van Hoek 1996: 337)
This may help explain the fact that uent ISL signers can distinguish between
c. locus as rst person and c. locus as non-specied agent in discourse, as in
passives (Leeson and Saeed 2004). As noted by Van Hoek, in passive con-
structions the patient is the most highly activated referent in both the signer’s
and the addressee’s awareness, licensing the signer’s use of constructions with
little or no attention focused on the agent. Thus accessibility is determined
by salience.
It seems, then, that mental space theory gives a useful tool to account for
ISL signers’ use of their pronominal system. The participants occupy the
real space; the signer creates a further mental space by identify links between
tokens and referents. The signer by pointing at loci then creates links between
the two spaces. Pointing signs used deictically can indicate individuals
present in the context of communication; mental space theory allows us to
explain uses where the pointing sign indicates individuals who are part of the
signer’s mental representation.
9.6 Conceptual blending
Conceptual blending (Fauconnier and Turner 2002), or conceptual integra-
tion, is a development of mental space theory that seeks to describe how
language users take knowledge from dierent domains of experience, viewed
as mental spaces, and combine it to create new extended analogies. It has
been applied to signed language narrative strategies such as those we saw in
Chapter 8, where the signer integrates dierent elements, including his or her
own body, into a composite representation of events. Dudis (2004) describes
how ASL signers use simultaneous constructions involving the signer’s hands
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 218 10/04/2012 11:00

Towards a Cognitive Account of Signed Languages 219
and body, including eyegaze, to create and maintain grounded blends. He
seeks to show how a signer’s narrative goals interact with the physiologi-
cal limits of a manually articulated language in the construction of a signed
language narrative. Dudis reports how signers frequently establish simulta-
neous blends by assigning dierent body parts to separate spaces in order
to overcome such constraints, leading to a range of narrative strategies on
which signers can draw. One ASL example he gives (59) relates to a hunter’s
encounter with a deer, where the hunter and the deer are two elements that
compose the base space, while use of the plain verb HUNT adds a hunting
frame to the mental space. The narrator, by the shifted reference or sur-
rogacy strategy we described in Chapter 8, may become the hunter during
the narration while continuing the role of narrator. The signer’s audience
has no diculty understanding the blended scene before them, for example
when the signer’s head tilt, eyegaze and hand congurations are the hunter’s.
Participants can also bring in and rely on knowledge from the relevant input
spaces. Thus the audience can infer the use of a weapon in the hunting space
without it being overtly mentioned.
Leeson and Saeed (2007) report on a range of conceptual blends in IS,
using as an example the ‘war in Iraq’ narrative in Examples 5.2 and 8.14. They
describe how the signer uses his body and the signing space to represent dif-
ferent views of the topography of Iraq and surrounding countries. They note
that the signer establishes the discourse topic at the outset and establishes the
historical context to this war, clearly establishing a base space for Iraq that is
situated in neutral signing space. The signer then relates dierent sections of
the country to security operations. For example, he discusses how the north-
ern sector of Iraq was deemed a no-y zone, as shown in Example 9.9. The
signer uses a baby-C-handshape to point out parts of Iraq where planes are
not allowed to y. This baby-C is superimposed on the non-dominant CL-B-
handshape which serves to represent the entire country of Iraq. In addition to
being a structure that illustrates relative location, there is an iconic relation:
the baby-C-handshape placed over the non-dominant hand, representing the
aerial zone mapped out over the real-world geographical territory. However,
the simultaneous construction here does not serve to mark the relative loca-
tion of two elements but instead allows for a backgrounding–foregrounding
contrast between the areas in Iraq which could be accessed by aircraft.
In this narrative the locations of the geographical areas in signing space
and their mode of presentation shift as the narrator’s viewpoint moves. In
Examples 9.10–12 the narrator rst sets the scene, presenting in 9.10 the geo-
graphical location of Kuwait relative to the location for Iraq, which is rep-
resented here on the non-dominant hand by the CL-C-handshape, holding
Iraq’s location rm. The signer explains that the invading forces wished to
move on Iraq from the south, that is, troops would march northwards, from
Kuwait, into Iraq. The signer goes on to note that the invading forces also
wished to move simultaneously, from the north, through Turkey, moving
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 219 10/04/2012 11:00

220 Irish Sign Language
Example 9.9
southwards into Iraq. The segments in bold indicate the relevant areas of text
establishing these notions.
 Example 9.10
SO PLAN FIRM WAR SHRUG
u.n. INSPECTOR EXAMINE++
INDEX+various-locations+sr WEAPONS EXAMINE SHRUG
HAVE-TO LEAVE FLY-OUT-OF i.r.a.q.
SAME TIME BEFORE-THAT-TIME AMERICA PLAN WANT WAR INDEX+sr
dh: AREA AROUND k.u.w.a.i.t. 2 / h CL-5+OPEN ‘MANY-MOVE-NORTH’
nd: CL-C
SAME WANT
dh: TURKEY
nd: CL-B+MOVE-FROM-NORTH-TOWARDS-SOUTH
t.u.r.k.e.y.
dh:
nd: CL-B+MOVE-FROM-NORTH-TOWARDS-SOUTH
dh:
nd: CL-B-BENT ‘MOVE-IN-FROM-NORTH’
ASK TURKEY PERMISSION ASK
‘And so the war was planned. The UN inspectors who were in Iraq to search for
weapons (of mass destruction) had to leave Iraq. At the same time, America was
planning what they wanted in terms of a war plan. Specifically, they intended to
move north from Kuwait and, at the same time, move south from Turkey, but in
order to do this, they needed to get permission from the Turks’
(Senan (01) Personal Stories (Dublin))
(a) dh: CL:B ‘THAT AREA’) (b) dh: NOT ALLOW FLY-AIRPLANE
(a) ND: CL:B. ——————— (b) ND: CL:B ———————————
Senan (01) Personal Stories (Dublin) Senan (01) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 220 10/04/2012 11:00

Towards a Cognitive Account of Signed Languages 221
The crucial instances can be seen in the illustrations below. In Example 9.11,
the signer describes how the inspectors leave Iraq. What is interesting is how
the event is framed. Here, Iraq, which has been at c. locus, is now moved to
the left side of signing space, illustrating a shift in focus between the attention
on what is happening in the country, and for now, the attention given to the
inspectors’ act of leaving Iraq. The fact that the signer, as narrator, is using
NMFs associated with the plane’s ‘normal’ departure (‘mm’) reinforces this,
suggesting that more central focus, in this scene, is the controversial depar-
ture of the inspectors.
Example 9.11
Example 9.12 illustrates the backgrounding of the mental space for Iraq,
which is gapped, or omitted, while the signer’s dominant and non-dominant
hand now represent the American army’s intended path of invasion via
Kuwait and Turkey. Both countries were previously established, and there-
fore, active referents for the viewer. Equally, the now invisible central space
associated with IRAQ remains accessible while backgrounded, remaining
the key concept across the narrative. In this detailed view of parts of this
narrative we see a blending of spaces involving locations and entities in the
real world, a projected map of these, and elements of the signer’s real space.
The signer uses parts of his body to represent entities moving around the war
zone, while his eyegaze is directed towards the projected map, representing
the viewpoint of the signer himself as narrator, inviting his audience to view
the events.
(U.N. inspectors) FLY-OUT-OF (i.r.a.q.)
‘(The UN inspectors who were in Iraq to search
for weapons (of mass destruction) had) to leave Iraq’
Senan (01) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 221 10/04/2012 11:00

222 Irish Sign Language
Example 9.12
9.7 Conclusion
We have briey touched on some ideas from cognitive linguistics about how
languages are constructed and used. In exploring the relationship between
conceptual structures and language, this approach has shed light on such
issues as the role of the body in linguistic concepts, iconicity, the role of meta-
phor and metonymy in lexicon and grammar, and the mental models used in
managing referential links. These proposals seek to characterise all human
languages but we hope to have shown in the course of this book how well they
contribute to the understanding of sign languages, and Irish Sign Language
in particular. Linguists have only started to investigate the complexity and
richness of the grammatical structures and discourse practices of ISL. This
book is presented in the hope of taking some early steps in what will be a long
and exciting journey.
Notes
1. This metaphor is discussed by several writers, for example Lako
and Kövecses (1987), as a combination of two more basic meta-
phors: EMOTION AS CONTAINED LIQUID and THE BODY AS
CONTAINER FOR EMOTIONS.
2. The use of this handshape for HAVE seems to have emerged in the past
twenty years or so, and may have been borrowed from BSL. Over the
past two decades, this sign has moved from meaning ‘to have a physical
item in one’s possession’ (for example, HAVE BOOK, HAVE MONEY,
dh: CL:B+MOVE-FROM-NORTH-TOWARDS-SOUTH
nd: CL:B-BENT ‘MOVE-IN-FROM-NORTH’................
‘(America) intended to move north (from Kuwait) and,
at the same time, move south (from Turkey)’
Senan (01) Personal Stories (Dublin)
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 222 10/04/2012 11:00

Towards a Cognitive Account of Signed Languages 223
which literally can be held) to less concrete items like HAVE IDEA ‘have
an idea’, HAVE VISION ‘have a vision of something’.
3. This sign is also used as an established lexical item to mean
OPPORTUNITY, that is something-good-pops-up, though this usage
may have been borrowed from BSL in the 1990s, since it is not used widely
in this way by older signers.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 223 10/04/2012 11:00

References
Aarons, D. and Reynolds, L. (2003), ‘South African Sign Langauge: changing
policies and practice’, in L. Monaghan, C. Schmaling, K. Nakamura and G. H.
Turner (eds), Many Ways to be Deaf: International Variation in Deaf Communitites,
Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press, pp. 194–210.
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2000), Classiers: A Typology of Noun Categorization Devices,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Allan, K. (1977), ‘Classiers’, Language, 53(2), 285–311.
Angry Silence, television documentary. Ireland: TG4/Irish Deaf Society, 1998.
Ariel, M. (1988), ‘Referring and accessibility’, Journal of Linguistics, 24, 65–87.
Ariel, M. (1990), Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents, London and New York:
Routledge.
Armstrong, D. F. (1999), ‘The gestural theory of language origins’, Sign Language
Studies, 8(3), 289–314.
Armstrong, D. F., Stokoe, W. C. and Wilcox, S. (1995), Gesture and the Nature of
Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Armstrong, D. F. and Wilcox, S. (2007), The Gestural Origin of Language, New York
and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baker, C. and Padden, C. (1978), American Sign Language: A Look at its Story,
Structure and Community, Silver Spring, MD: T. J. Publishers.
Baker, R. and Knight, P. (1988), ‘“Total communication”: current policy and prac-
tice’, in S. Gregory, P. Knight, W. McCracken, S. Powers and L. Watson (eds),
Issues in Deaf Education, London: David Fulton, pp. 77–88.
Baker-Shenk, C. and Cokely, D. (1980), American Sign Language: A Teacher’s
Resource Text on Grammar and Culture, Silver Spring, MD: T. J. Publishers.
Battison, R. (1978), Lexical Borrowing in American Sign Language, Silver Spring,
MD: Linstok Press.
Bergman, B. (1977), Technad svenska. Utbildingsforskning, (English translation:
Signed Swedish, 1979), Stockholm: LiberLäromedel/Utbildningsförlaget.
Bergman, B. (1983), ‘Verbs and Adjectives: Some Morphological Processes in Swedish
Sign Language’, in J. G. Kyle and B. Woll (eds), Language in Sign: An International
Perspective on Sign Language, London: Croom Helm, pp. 3–9.
Bloomeld, L. (1926), ‘A set of postulates for the science of language’, Language, 2,
153–64.
Bloomeld, L. (1933), Language, New York: Henry Holt.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 224 10/04/2012 11:00

References 225
Boyes Braem, P. (2001), ‘Functions of the mouthings in the signing of Deaf early
and late learners of Swiss German Sign Language (DSGS)’, in P. Boyes Braem
and R. Sutton-Spence (eds), The Hands are the Head of the Mouth: The Mouth as
Articulator in Sign Languages, Hamburg: Signum, pp. 99–132.
Brelje, H. W. (ed.) (1999), Global Perspectives on the Education of the Deaf in Selected
Countries, Hillsboro, OR: Butte.
Brennan, M. (1983), ‘The marking of time in British Sign Language’, in J. G. Kyle and
B. Woll (eds), Language in Sign: An International Perspective on Sign Language,
London: Croom Helm, pp. 10–31.
Brennan, M. (1986), ‘Linguistic perspectives’, in B. T. Tervoort (ed.), Signs of
Life: Proceedings of the Second European Congress on Sign Language Research,
Amsterdam: Dutch Foundation for the Deaf and Hearing Impaired Child, Institute
of General Linguistics, University of Amsterdam and Dutch Council of the Deaf,
pp. 1–16.
Brennan, M. (1990), Word Formation in British Sign Language, Stockholm: University
of Stockholm.
Brennan, M. (1992), ‘The visual world of BSL: an introduction’, in D. Brien (ed.),
Dictionary of British Sign Language/English, London: Faber and Faber, pp. 1–134.
Brennan, M. (1994), ‘Word order: introducing the issues’, in M. Brennan and G. H.
Turner (eds), Word Order Issues in Sign Language, Durham: International Sign
Linguistics Association, pp. 9–46.
Brennan, M., Hughes, G. and Lawson, L. K. (1984), Words in Hand: A Structural
Analysis of the Signs of British Sign Language, Edinburgh: Edinburgh BSL
Research Project.
Brien, D. (ed.) (1992), Dictionary of British Sign Language/English, London: Faber
and Faber.
Brisard, F. (2006), ‘Logic, subjectivity and the semantics/pragmatics distinction’, in
A. Anthanasiadou, C. Canakis and B. Cornillie (eds), Subjectication: Various
Paths to Subjectivity, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 41–74.
Brown, G. and Yule, G. (1983), Discourse Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bybee, J., Perkins, R. and Paglucia, W. (1994), The Evolution of Grammar: Tense,
Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Byrne-Dunne, D. (2005), Language Acquisition by Deaf Children in Ireland: Some
Theoretical Considerations and Two Case Studies, Dublin: Trinity College
Dublin.
Catholic Institution for the Deaf and Dumb (1881), Annual Report of the Catholic
Institution for the Deaf and Dumb, Dublin: Catholic Institution for the Deaf and
Dumb.
Chafe, W. L. (1994), Discourse, Consciousness and Time: Flow and Displacement of
Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Conama, J. B. (2008), Evaluation of Signing Information Mid-West, Limerick: PAUL
Partnership.
Conama, J. B. and Grehan, C. (2002), Is there Poverty in the Deaf Community?,
Dublin: Irish Deaf Society and Combat Poverty Agency.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 225 10/04/2012 11:00

226 Irish Sign Language
Conrad, R. (1979), The Deaf School Child: Language and Cognitive Function, London:
Harper and Row.
Conroy, P. (2006), Signing In and Signing Out: The Education and Employment
Experiences of Deaf People in Ireland. A Study of Inequality and Deaf People in
Ireland, Dublin: Irish Deaf Society.
Coogan, A. (2003), Irish Deaf Women: The Appropriateness of their Education?,
Dublin: Trinity College Dublin.
Corker, M. (1996), Deaf Transitions: Images and Origins of Deaf Families, Deaf
Communities and Deaf Identities, London: Jessica Kingsley.
Crasborn, O. (2001), Phonetic Implementation of Phonological Categories in Sign
Language of the Netherlands, Utrecht: LOT.
Crean, E. J. (1997), Breaking the Silence: The Education of the Deaf in Ireland 1816–
1996, Dublin: Irish Deaf Society.
Dahl, Ö. (1985), Tense and Aspect Systems, Oxford: Blackwell.
de Jorgio, A. (2000), Gesture in Naples and Gesture in Classical Antiquity. A translation
of La mimica degli antichi investigata nel gestire napoletano (Fibreno, Naples 1832)
and with an introduction and notes by Adam Kendon, Bloomington and Indianapolis:
Indiana University Press.
De Smet, H. and Verstraete, J. C. (2006), ‘Coming to terms with subjectivity’,
Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 365–92.
Department of Education (1972), The Education of Children who are Handicapped by
Impaired Hearing, Dublin: Government Publications.
Department of Education and Science (1998), ‘Education Act 1998’, Dublin:
Government Publications.
Deuchar, M. (1984), British Sign Language, London: Routledge and Keegan Paul.
Deuchar, M. (1987), ‘Sign language research’, in J. Lyons, R. Coates, M. Deuchar
and G. Gazdar (eds), New Horizons in Linguistics 2, London: Penguin, pp. 311–55.
Dowty, D. R. (1991), ‘Thematic proto-roles and argument selection’, Language, 67,
574–619.
Dudis, P. (2002), ‘Grounded blend maintenance as a discourse strategy’, in C. Lucas
(ed.), Turntaking, Fingerspelling, and Contact in Signed Languages, Washington,
DC: Gallaudet University Press, pp. 53–72.
Dudis, P. (2004), ‘Body partitioning and real-space blends’, Cognitive Linguistics,
15(2), 223–38.
Engberg-Pedersen, E. (1993), Space in Danish Sign Language: The Semantics and
Morphosyntax of the Use of Space in a Visual Language, Hamburg: Signum.
European Parliament (1988), ‘Resolution on Sign Languages as Adopted by the
European Parliament in Plenary Session on 17 June 1988’, Doc. A2-302/87,
Brussels: European Parliament.
European Parliament (1998), ‘Resolution on Sign Languages as Adopted by the
European Parliament in Plenary Session on 18 November 1998’, Doc. B4-0985/98,
Brussels European Parliament.
European Union of the Deaf (2010), Brussels Declaration on Sign Languages in the
European Union, available at <eud.eu/uploads/brussels_declaration_English.pdf>
(accessed 25 November 2011).
Evans, V., and Green, M. (2006), Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction, Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 226 10/04/2012 11:00

References 227
Fass, D. C. (1991), ‘met*: A method for discriminating metonymy and metaphor by
computer’, Computational Linguistics, 17(1), 49–90.
Fauconnier, G. (1985), Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural
Language, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fauconnier, G. (1997), Mappings in Thought and Language, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Fauconnier, G., and Turner, M. (2002), The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and
the Mind’s Hidden Complexities, New York: Basic Books.
Fitzgerald, A. (forthcoming), A Cognitive Account of Mouthings and Mouth Gestures
in Irish Sign Language, Dublin: Trinity College Dublin.
Foley, W. A., and Van Valin, R. D. J. (1984), Functional Syntax and Universal
Grammar, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Foley-Cave, S. (2003), Humour-Power-Identity: An Anthropological Exploration of
Irish Deaf Humour, Dublin: Dublin Business School.
Foran, Stanislus J. (1979), Irish Sign Language, Dublin: National Association for
Deaf People.
Friedman, L. A. (ed.) (1977), On the Other Hand: New Perspectives on American Sign
Language, New York: Academic Press.
Frishberg, N. (1975), ‘Arbitrariness and iconicity: historical changes in American
Sign Language’, Language, 51, 676–710.
Garton, A. F. (1994), Interacción social y desarrollo del lenguaje y la cognición,
Barcelona: Paidos.
Gascon-Ramos, M. (2008), ‘Wellbeing in deaf children: A framework of understand-
ing’, Educational and Child Psychology, 25(2), 57–71.
Geeraerts, D. (2006), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gillen, J. (2004), You Have to Be Deaf to Understand: A Report Created by Deaf
Ex-mainstream User Julianne Gillen on the Collective Experiences by a Group of
Ex-mainstreamed Deaf in the Irish Education System from 1975–2001, Dublin:
Deaforward (Irish Deaf Society).
Givón, T. (1984), Syntax: A Typological Functional Introduction, Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Givón, T. (1989), Mind, Code and Context: Essays in Pragmatics, Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003), The Resilience of Language: What Gesture Creation in
Deaf Children Can Tell Us about how all Children Learn Language, New York:
Psychology Press.
Goldin-Meadow, S. and Morford, M. (1994), ‘Gesture in early child language’, in
V. Volterra and C. J. Erting (eds), From Gesture to Language in Hearing and Deaf
Children, Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, pp. 249–62.
Goldin-Meadow, S. and Mylander, C. (1994), ‘The development of morphology
without a conventional language model’, in V. Volterra and C. J. Erting (eds), From
Gesture to Language in Hearing and Deaf Children, Washington, DC: Gallaudet
University Press, pp. 165–77.
Gorbet, L. and Wilcox, P. (2010), ‘Cross-linguistic conceptual schematization of
“attention”: American Sign Language (ASL) and Italian Sign Language (LIS)’,
paper presented at High Desert Linguistics Conference, Albuquerque, NM:
University of New Mexico.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 227 10/04/2012 11:00

228 Irish Sign Language
Grehan, C. (2008), Communication Islands: The Impact of Segregation on Attitudes
to ISL among a Sample of Graduates of St. Mary’s School for Deaf Girls, Dublin:
Trinity College Dublin.
Griey, N. (1994), From Silence to Speech: Fifty Years with the Deaf, Dublin:
Dominican.
Grimes, J. E. (1975), The Thread of Discourse, The Hague: Mouton.
Haiman, J. (1998), ‘The metalinguistics of ordinary language’, Evolution of
Communication, 2(1), 117–35.
Heiling, K. (ed.) (1999), Global Perspectives on the Education of the Deaf in Selected
Countries, Hillsboro, OR: Butte, pp. 358–65.
Hockett, C. F. (1958), A Course in Modern Linguistics, New York: Macmillan.
Ingram, R. (2000), ‘Foreword’, in C. Roy (ed.), Innovative Practices for Teaching Sign
Language Interpreters, Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Jacobowitz, E. L. and Stokoe, W. C. (1988), ‘Signs of tense in ASL verbs’, Sign
Language Studies, 60, 331–40.
James, T., O’Neill, E. and Smyth, J. (1992), Reading Achievements of Children with
Hearing Impairments, Dublin and Jordanstown: National Rehabilitation Board/
New University of Ulster, Jordanstown.
Janzen, T. (1998), Topicality in ASL: Information Ordering, Constituent Structure, and
the Function of Topic Marking, PhD dissertation, Albuquerque, NM: University of
New Mexico.
Janzen, T. (1999), ‘The grammaticization of topics in American Sign Language’, Sign
Language Studies, 23(2), 271–306.
Janzen, T. (2005), Perspective Shift Reected in the Signer’s Use of Space, Dublin:
Centre for Deaf Studies, School of Linguistic, Speech and Communication
Sciences, Trinity College Dublin.
Janzen, T. (2010), ‘Pragmatics as start point; discourse as end point’, keynote paper
presented at High Desert Linguistics Conference, Albuquerque, NM: University of
New Mexico.
Janzen, T. D. and Shaer, B. (2002), ‘Gesture as the substrate in the process of ASL
grammaticization’, in R. Meier, D. Quinto and K. Cormier (eds), Modality and
Structure in Signed and Spoken Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 199–223.
Johnson, M. (1987), The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination,
and Reason, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Johnston, T. (1989), Auslan: The Sign Language of the Australian Deaf Community,
Sydney: University of Sydney.
Johnston, T. (2001), ‘The lexical database of Auslan (Australian Sign Language)’,
Sign Language and Linguistics, 4(1/2), 145–69.
Johnston, T. (2006), ‘W(h)ither the Deaf Community: population, genetics, and the
future of Austalian Sign Language’, Sign Language Studies, 6(2), 137–73.
Johnston, T. and de Beuzeville, L. (n.d.), Researching the Linguistic Use of Space in
Auslan: Guidelines for Annotators Using the Auslan Corpus, Sydney: Department of
Linguistics, Macquarie University.
Johnston, T. and Schembri, A. (2007), Australian Sign Language: An Introduction to
Sign Language Linguistics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnston, T., Vermeerbergen, M., Schembri, A. and Leeson, L. (2007), ‘“Real data
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 228 10/04/2012 11:00

References 229
are messy”: on the cross-linguistic analysis of constituent ordering in Australian
Sign Language, Vlaamse Gebarentaal (Flemish Sign Language) and Irish Sign
Language’, in P. Perniss, R. Pfau and M. Steinbach (eds), Sign Languages: A Cross-
Linguistic Perspective, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 163–205.
Karlsson, F. (1984), ‘Structure and iconicity in sign language’, in F. Loncke, P. Boyes-
Braem and Y. Lebrun (eds), Recent Research on European Sign Languages, Lisse:
Swets and Zeitlinger, pp. 149–55.
Kegl, J. A. and Wilbur, R. B. (1976), ‘When does structure stop and style begin?
Syntax, morphology and phonology vs. stylistic variation in American Sign
Language’, in C. Mufwene and S. Steever (eds), Papers from the Twelfth Regional
Meeting (Chicago Linguistics Society), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp.
376–96.
Kendon, A. (1980), ‘Some uses of gesture’, paper delivered to the New England Child
Language Association, New London, CT.
Klima, E. S. and Bellugi, U. (1979), The Signs of Language, Cambridge, MA and
London: Harvard University Press.
Knoors, H. (1999), ‘The education of deaf children in the Netherlands’, in H. W.
Brelje (ed.), Global Perspectives on the Education of the Deaf in Selected Countries,
Hillsboro, OR: Butte, pp. 249–60.
Kövecses, Z. and Radden, G. (1998), ‘Metonymy: developing a cognitive linguistic
view’, Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–77.
Krausneker, V. (2001), ‘Sign languages of Europe – future chances’, in L. Leeson
(ed.), Looking Forward – EUD in the 3rd Millennium – The Deaf Citizen in the 21st
Century, Coleford: Douglas McLean, pp. 64–73.
Kyle, J. and Woll, B. (1985), Sign Language: The Study of Deaf People and their
Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ladd, P. (2003), Understanding Deaf Culture: In Search of Deafhood, Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Ladefoged, P. (1993), A Course in Phonetics, Fort Worth and London: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich.
Lako, G. (1987), Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about
the Mind, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lako, G. and Johnson, M. (1980), Metaphors We Live By, Chicago and London:
University of Chicago Press.
Lako, G. and Johnson, M. (1999), Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and
its Challenge to Western Thought, New York: Basic Books.
Lako, G. and Johnson, M. (2003), Metaphors We Live By, new edn, Chicago and
London: University of Chicago Press.
Lako, G. and Kövecses, Z. (1987), ‘The cognitive model of anger inherent in
American English’, in D. Holland and N. Quinn (eds), Cultural Models in Language
and Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 195–221.
Lane, H., Homeister, R. and Bahan, B. (1996), A Journey into the Deaf-World, San
Diego: Dawn Sign Press.
Langacker, R. (1987), Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 1, Theoretical
Foundations, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Lawson, L. K. (1983), ‘Multi-channel signs’, in B. Woll, J. G. Kyle and M. Deuchar
(eds), Language in Sign, London: Croom Helm.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 229 10/04/2012 11:00

230 Irish Sign Language
Leeson, L. (1996), The Marking of Time in Signed Languages with Specic Reference
to Irish Sign Language, Dublin: Trinity College Dublin.
Leeson, L. (1997), The ABC of Irish Sign Language: An Accompaniment to the Series
of Programmes Shown on RTÉ, Dublin: Irish Deaf Society and RTÉ.
Leeson, L. (2001), Aspects of Verbal Valency in Irish Sign Language, Doctoral thesis,
Dublin: Trinity College Dublin.
Leeson, L. (2004), ‘Signs of change in Europe: current European perspectives in
the status of sign languages’, in P. McDonnell (ed.), Deaf Studies in Ireland: An
Introduction, Coleford: Douglas McLean, pp. 172–197.
Leeson, L. (2005), ‘Vying with variation: interpreting language contact, gender vari-
ation and generational dierence’, in T. Janzen (ed.), Topics in Signed Language
Interpreting, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 251–92.
Leeson, L. (2006), Signed Languages in Education in Europe – A Preliminary
Exploration. (Preliminary Study. Languages of Education), Strasbourg: Council of
Europe Language Policy Division.
Leeson, L. (2007), Seeing is Learning: A Review of Education for Deaf and Hard of
Hearing People in Ireland, Trim: National Council for Special Education.
Leeson, L. (2010), ‘Exploring discourse in Irish Sign Language’, round table presenta-
tion, Winnipeg: Department of Linguistics, University of Manitoba.
Leeson, L. and Foley-Cave, S. (2007), ‘Deep and meaningful conversation: chal-
lenging interpreter impartiality in the semantics and pragmatics classroom’, in
M. Metzger and E. Fleetwood (eds), Translation, Sociolinguistic, and Consumer
Issues in Interpreting, Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press, pp. 39–73.
Leeson, L. and Grehan, C. (2004), ‘To the lexicon and beyond: the eect of gender on
variation in Irish Sign Language’, in M. Van Herreweghe and M. Vermeerbergen
(eds), To the Lexicon and Beyond: Sociolinguistics in European Deaf Communities,
Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, pp. 39–73.
Leeson, L. and Saeed, J. (2003), ‘Exploring the cognitive underpinning in the con-
strual of passive events in Irish Sign Language (ISL)’, paper presented at ICLC 8,
Logroño.
Leeson, L. and Saeed, J. (2004), ‘The construal of passive events in Irish Sign
Language (ISL)’, paper presented at TISLR 8, Barcelona.
Leeson, L. and Saeed, J. (2007), ‘Conceptual blending and the windowing of attention
in Irish Sign Language’, in M. Vermeerbergen, L. Leeson and O. A. Crasborn (eds),
Simultaneity in Signed Languages, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins,
pp. 55–73.
Leeson, L. and Saeed, J. I. (2010), ‘Discourse markers in the Signs of Ireland
corpus: the function of buoys’, paper presented at High Desert Linguistics Society
Conference, Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico.
Leeson, L., Saeed, J., Leonard, C., MacDu, A. and Byrne-Dunne, D. (2006),
‘Moving heads and moving hands: developing a digital corpus of Irish Sign
Language. The ‘Signs of Ireland’ Corpus Development Project’, IT&T Annual
Conference Proceedings 2006. October 25–26, 2006, pp. 33–43.
Leeson, L. and Sheikh, H. (2010), Experiencing Deafhood: Snapshots from Five
Nations, Dublin: Interesource Group Ireland.
LeMaster, B. (1990), The Maintenance and Loss of Female and Male Signs in the
Dublin Deaf Community, Los Angeles: UCLA.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 230 10/04/2012 11:00

References 231
LeMaster, B. (1999–2000), ‘Reappropriation of gendered Irish Sign Language in one
family’, Visual Anthropology Review, 15(2), 1–15.
LeMaster, B. (2002), ‘What dierence does dierence make? Negotiating gender and
generation in Irish Sign Language’, in S. Benor, M. Rose, D. Sharma, J. Sweetland
and Q. Zhang (eds), Gendered Practices in Language, Stanford: CSLI Publications,
pp. 309–38.
LeMaster, B. and O’Dwyer, J. P. (1991), ‘Knowing and using female and male signs
in Dublin’, Sign Language Studies, 73, 361–96.
Leonard, C. (2005), ‘Signs of diversity: use and recognition of gendered signs among
young Irish Deaf people’, Deaf Worlds, 21(2), 62–77.
Liddell, S. K. (1978), ‘Non-manual signals in ASL: a many layered system’, in W.
C. Stokoe (ed.), Proceedings of the First National Symposium on Sign Language
Research and Training, 1977, Chicago: National Association of the Deaf, pp.
193–228.
Liddell, S. K. (1980), American Sign Language Syntax, The Hague and New York:
Mouton.
Liddell, S. K. (1990), ‘Four functions of a locus: reexamining the structure of space in
ASL’, in C. Lucas (ed.), Sign Language Research: Theoretical Issues, Washington
DC: Gallaudet University Press, pp. 176–98.
Liddell, S. K. (2000), ‘Indicating verbs and pronouns: pointing away from agreement’,
in H. Lane and K. Emmorey (eds), The Signs of Language Revisted: An Anthology
to Honour Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, Mahwah, NJ: LEA, pp. 303–20.
Liddell, S. K. (2003), Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liddell, S. K., Vogt-Svendsen, M. and Bergman, B. (2007), ‘A crosslinguistic compar-
ison of buoys. Evidence from American, Norwegian, and Swedish Sign Language’,
in M. Vermeerbergen, L. Leeson and O. Crasborn (eds), Simultaneity in Signed
Languages: Form and Function, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp.
187–215.
List, G., Wloka, M. and List, G. (1999), ‘Education of the Deaf in Germany’, in
H. W. Brelje (ed.), Global Perspectives on the Education of the Deaf in Selected
Countries, Hillsboro, OR: Butte, pp. 113–39.
Loncke, F., Quertinmont, S. and Ferreyra, P. (1990), ‘Deaf children in schools: more
or less native signers?’, in S. Prillwitz and T. Vollhaber (eds), Current Trends in
European Sign Language Research. Proceedings of the 3rd European Congress on
Sign Language Research, Hamburg, July 1989, Seedorf: Signum, pp. 163–8.
MacSweeney, M. (1998), ‘Cognition and deafness’, in S. Gregory, P. Knight,
W. McCracken, S. Powers and L. Watson (eds), Issues in Deaf Education, London:
David Fulton, pp. 20–7.
Maguire, F. (1991), A User’s Guide for Irish Sign Language Research, Dublin: Trinity
College Dublin.
Mandel, M. (1977), ‘Iconic devices in American Sign Language’, in L. A. Friedman
(ed.), On the Other Hand: New Perspectives on American Sign Language, New York:
Academic Press, pp. 55–107.
Marschark, M. and Spencer, P. E. (2009), Evidence of Best Practice Models and
Outcomes in the Education of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children: An International
Review, Trim: National Council for Special Education.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 231 10/04/2012 11:00

232 Irish Sign Language
Mathews, E. (2007), ‘Some statistics regarding the education of deaf and hard of
Hearing children in Ireland: the current situation’, in L. Leeson (ed.), Seeing is
Learning: A Review of Education for Deaf and Hard of Hearing People in Ireland,
Trim: National Council for Special Education, pp. 42–62.
Matthews, P. A. (1996a), ‘Extending the lexicon of Irish Sign Language’, Teanga, 16,
135–68.
Matthews, P. A. (1996b), The Irish Deaf Community, Baile Átha Cliath: Institiúid
Teangeolaíochta Éireann.
Matthews, P. A. (2005), ‘Practical phonology: what learners need to know about
handshapes in Irish Sign Language’, Deaf Worlds, 21(2), 32–61.
Matthews, P. A. and Foley-Cave, S. (2004), ‘Village life: Deaf culture in contem-
porary Ireland’, in P. McDonnell (ed.), Deaf Studies in Ireland: An Introduction,
Coleford: Douglas McLean, pp. 65–84.
Mayberry, R. and Eichen, E. B. (1991), ‘The long lasting advantage of learning sign
language in childhood: another look at the critical period for language acquisition’,
Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 486–512.
McDonnell, J. (1997), ‘The lexicon and vocabulary of signed English or manually
coded English’, Teanga, 17, 137–48.
McDonnell, P. (1979), ‘The establishment and operation of institutions for the edu-
cation of the Deaf in Ireland, 1816–1889’, unpublished essay submitted in part-
fullment of the requirements of the award of the Master in Education, University
College Dublin, Dublin.
McDonnell, P. (1996), Verb Categories in Irish Sign Language, Dublin: Trinity
College Dublin.
McDonnell, P. (2004), Deaf Studies in Ireland – An Introduction, Coleford: Douglas
McLean.
McDonnell, P. (2010), ‘Perspectives on deafness: history of the Irish Deaf commu-
nity’, in H. Sheikh (ed.), ‘Perspectives on Deafness’ elearning course, SIGNALL 3
(Leonardo da Vinci) Project, on restricted-access Moodle website.
McDonnell, P. and Saunders, H. (1993), ‘Sit on your hands: strategies to prevent
signing’, in R. Fischer and H. Lane (eds), Looking Back: A Reader on the History of
Deaf Communities and their Sign Languages, Hamburg: Signum, pp. 255–60.
McNeill, D. (1992), Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
McQueen, J. M. and Cutler, A. (1998), ‘Morphology in word recognition’, in
A. Spencer and A. M. Zwicky (eds), The Handbook of Morphology, Oxford:
Blackwell, pp. 406–27.
Meier, R. (1990), ‘Person deixis in American Sign Language’, in S. Fischer and
P. Siple (eds), Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, Vol. 1: Linguistics,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 175–90.
Metzger, M. (1995), The Paradox of Neutrality: A Comparison of Interpreters’ Goals
with the Reality of Interactive Discourse, Washington DC: Georgetown University.
Metzger, M. (1999), Sign Language Interpreting: Deconstructing the Myth of
Neutrality, Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Militzer, S. (2009), ‘The inuence of oralism on mouth actions in Irish Sign
Language (ISL)’, paper presented at Boston University Conference on Language
Development (BUCLD) 34, Boston.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 232 10/04/2012 11:00

References 233
Militzer, S. (2010), ‘Puzzles of cross-modal language contact: code-mixing, mode-
mixing, borrowing or language change? The case of Irish Sign Language’, paper
presented at High Desert Linguistics Society Conference, Albuquerque, NM:
University of New Mexico.
Miller, C. (1994), ‘Simultaneous constructions in Quebec Sign Language’, in
M. Brennan and G. H. Turner (eds), Word Order Issues in Sign Language. Working
Papers, Durham: International Sign Linguistics Association, pp. 89–112.
Mindess, A. (1999), Reading between the Signs: Intercultural Communication for Sign
Language Interpreters, Boston: Intercultural Press.
Morgan, G. (1998), The Development of Discourse Cohesion in British Sign Language,
Bristol: Bristol University.
Morris, D., Collett, P., Marsh, P. and O’Shaughnessy, M. (1979), Gestures: Their
Origin and Distribution, New York: Stein and Day.
National Institution for the Education of the Deaf and Dumb (1817), Annual Report
of the National Institution for the Education of Deaf and Dumb Children of the Poor
in Ireland, Dublin: National Institution for the Education of the Deaf and Dumb.
Nilsson, A.-L. (2007), ‘The non-dominant hand in a Swedish Sign Language dis-
course’, in M. Vermeerbergen, L. Leeson and O. Crasborn (eds), Simultaneity
in Signed Languages: Form and Function, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins, pp. 163–85.
Nilsson, A.-L. (2008), Spatial Strategies in Descriptive Discourse: Use of Signing Space
in Swedish Sign Language, Dublin: Centre for Deaf Studies, School of Linguistic,
Speech and Communication Sciences, Trinity College Dublin.
Nilsson, A.-L. (2010), Space in Swedish Sign Language: Reference, Real-Space
Blending, and Interpretation, Stockholm: Stockholm University Press.
Nonhebel, A., Crasborn, O. and van der Kooij, E. (2004), Sign Language Transcription
Conventions for the ECHO Project, Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen.
Nunberg, G. (1995), ‘Transfers of meaning’, Journal of Semantics, 12(2), 109–32.
Ó Baoill , D. and Matthews, P. A. (2000), The Irish Deaf Community Volume 2: The
Structure of Irish Sign Language, Dublin: ITE.
Orpen, C. E. H. (1836), Anecdotes and Annals of the Deaf and Dumb, London: Tims.
Padden, C. A. (1988), The Interaction of Morphology and Syntax in American Sign
Language, New York: Garland.
Padden, C. A. (1990), ‘The relation between space and grammar in ASL verbal
morphology’, in C. Lucas (ed.), Sign Language Research: Theoretical Issues,
Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, pp. 118–32.
Pizzutto, E. and Pietrandrea, P. (2001), ‘The notation of signed texts’, Sign Language
and Linguistics, 4(1/2), 29–45.
Pollard, R. (2006), The Avenue, Dublin: Denzille Press.
Poulin, C. and Miller, C. (1995), ‘On narrative discourse and point of view in Quebec
Sign Language’, in K. Emmorey and J. Reilly (eds), Language, Gesture and Space,
Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbraum Associates, pp. 117–31.
Powers, S., Gregory, S. and Thoutenhoofd, E. D. (1998), The Educational Achievements
of Deaf Children: A Literature Review, London: Department for Education and
Employment.
Rainò, P. (2001), ‘Mouthings and mouth gestures in Finnish Sign Language (FinSL)’,
in P. Boyes Braem and R. Sutton-Spence (eds), The Hands are the Head of the
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 233 10/04/2012 11:00

234 Irish Sign Language
Mouth: The Mouth as Articulator in Sign Languages, Hamburg: Signum, pp.
41–50.
Risler, A. (2007), ‘A cognitive linguistic view of simultaneity in process signs in
French Sign Language’, in M. Vermeerbergen, L. Leeson and O. Crasborn
(eds), Simultaneity in Signed Languages: Form and Function, Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 73–102.
Rosenstein, O. (2000), ‘Is ISL (Israeli Sign Language) a Topic Prominent Language?’,
poster presented at TISLR 7, Amsterdam, 23–27 July 2000.
Roy, C. (1989), ‘Features of discourse in an American Sign Language lecture’, in
C. Lucas (ed.), The Sociolinguistics of the Deaf Community, San Diego: Academic
Press, pp. 231–51.
Rubino, C. (2001), ‘Pangasinan’, in J. Garry and C. Rubino (eds), Encyclopedia of the
World’s Languages: Past and Present, New York: Wilson Press, pp. 539–42.
Saeed, J. I. and Leeson, L. (2004), ‘Windowing of attention in simultaneous construc-
tions in Irish Sign Language (ISL)’, paper presented at the Fifth Meeting of the
High Desert Linguistics Society, Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico.
Sallandre, M.-A. (2007), ‘Simultaneity in French Sign Language discourse’, in
M. Vermeerbergen, L. Leeson and O. Crasborn (eds), Simultaneity in Signed
Languages: Form and Function, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp.
103–26.
Sandler, W. and Lillo-Martin, D. (2006), Sign Language and Linguistic Universals,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sapir, E. (1921), Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech, New York:
Harcourt Brace.
Schembri, A. (2000), ‘Rethinking “classiers” in signed languages’, paper presented
at TISLR 7, Amsterdam.
Schembri, A. (2003), ‘Rethinking “classiers” in signed languages’, in K. Emmorey
(ed.), Perspectives on Classier Constructions in Sign Languages, Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbraum, pp. 3–34.
Schembri, A., Jones, C. and Burnham, D. (2005), ‘Comparing action gestures and
classier verbs of motion: evidence from Australian Sign Language, Taiwan Sign
Language, and nonsigners’ gestures without speech’, Journal of Deaf Studies and
Deaf Education, 10(3), 272–90.
Schick, B. (1990), ‘Classier predicates in American Sign Language’, International
Journal of Sign Linguistics, 1, 15–40.
Shaer, B. (2000), A Syntactic, Pragmatic Analysis of the Expression of Necessity and
Possiibility in American Sign Language, Albuquerque, NM: University of New
Mexico.
Sign of the Times, television programme. Ireland: Mind the Gap Films for RTÉ,
August 1995, June 1996.
Slobin, D. I. and Hoiting, N. (1994), ‘Reference to movement in spoken and signed
languages: typological considerations’, paper presented at the Twentieth Annual
Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley.
Stalnaker, R. (1974), ‘Pragmatic presuppositions’, in M. Munitz and P. Unger (eds),
Semantics and Philosophy, New York: New York University Press, pp. 197–213.
Stokoe, W. C. (1960), Sign Language Structure: An Outline of the Visual Communication
Systems of the American Deaf, Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 234 10/04/2012 11:00

References 235
Stokoe, W. C. (1974), ‘Classication and description of sign languages’, in T. Sebeok
(ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics, The Hague: Mouton, pp. 207–28.
Stokoe, W. C. (1978), Sign Language Structure: The First Linguistic Analysis of
American Sign Language, Silver Spring: Linstok Press.
Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1987), ‘The phoneme as a perceptuomotor structure’, in D. A.
Allport (ed.), Language Perception and Production: Relationships between Listening,
Speaking, Reading and Writing, London: Academic Press, pp. 67–84.
Supalla, S. (1978), ‘Morphology of verbs of motion and location in American Sign
Language’, in F. Caccamise and D. Hicks (eds), American Sign Language in a
Bilingual, Bicultural Context: Proceedings of the Second National Symposium on
Sign Language Research and Teaching, Coronado, CA: National Association of the
Deaf, pp. 27–46.
Supalla, S. (1992), The Book of Name Signs: Naming in American Sign Language, San
Diego: Dawn Sign Press.
Sutton-Spence, R. (2007), ‘Mouthings and simultaneity in British Sign Language’,
in M. Vermeerbergen, L. Leeson and O. A. Crasborn (eds), Simultaneity in Signed
Languages: Form and Function, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sutton-Spence, R. and Boyes Braem, P. (2001), The Hands Are the Head of the Mouth:
The Mouth as Articulator in Sign Languages, Hamburg: Signum.
Sutton-Spence, R., Ladd, P. and Rudd, G. (2005), Analysing Sign Language Poetry,
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sutton-Spence, R. and Woll, B. (1999), The Linguistics of British Sign Language – An
Introduction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L. (1985), ‘Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms’,
in T. Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–149.
Talmy, L. (1988), ‘Force dynamics in language and cognition’, Cognitive Science, 12,
49–100.
Talmy, L. (1996), ‘ The windowing of attention in language’, in M. Shibitani and S. A.
Thompson (eds), Grammatical Constructions – Their Form and Meaning, Oxford:
Clarendon Press, pp. 235–87.
Tannen, D. (1989), Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational
Discourse, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, J. (1985), Linguistic Categorisation: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory, Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Taylor, J. (1995), Linguistic Categorisation. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory, 2nd edn,
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
The ABC of ISL, television programme. Ireland: IDS and RTÉ, 1997.
Thorvaldsdottir, G. (2010), ‘You get out what you put in: the beginnings of phonetic
and phonological coding in the Signs of Ireland digital corpus’, paper presented at
LREC, Malta, 17–23 May 2010.
Timmermans, N. (2005), The Status of Sign Languages in Europe, Strasbourg: Council
of Europe.
Traugott, E. (1989), ‘On the rise of epistemic meanings in English’, Language, 65(1),
31–55.
UNESCO (1994), The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on
Special Needs Education, Salamanca: United Nations Educational, Scientic
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 235 10/04/2012 11:00

236 Irish Sign Language
and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and Ministry of Education and Science,
Spain.
United Nations (2006), Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Ad
Hoc Committee on a Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on the
Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities, New
York: United Nations.
Valli, C. and Lucas, C. (1995), Linguistics of American Sign Language, 2nd edn,
Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
van der Kooij, E. (2002), Reducing Phonological Categories in Sign Language of the
Netherlands. Phonetic Implementation and Iconic Motivation, Utrecht: LOT
Van Herreweghe, M. (2002), ‘Turn-taking mechanisms and active participation
in meetings with deaf and hearing participants in Flanders’, in C. Lucas (ed.),
Turn-Taking, Fingerspelling, and Contact in Signed Languages, Washington, DC:
Gallaudet University Press, pp. 73–106.
Van Hoek, K. (1996), ‘Conceptual locations for reference in American Sign Language’,
in G. Fauconnier and E. Sweetser (eds), Spaces, Worlds and Grammar, Chicago and
London: University of Chicago Press.
Vermeerbergen, M. and Demey, E. (2007), ‘Sign+gesture=speech+gesture? Comparing
aspects of simultaneity in Flemish Sign Language to instances of concurrent speech
and gesture’, in M. Vermeerbergen, L. Leeson and O. Crasborn (eds), Simultaneity
in Signed Languages: Form and Function, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins, pp. 257–82.
Vermeerbergen, M. and Leeson, L. (2011), ‘European signed languages – towards a
typological snapshot’, in B. Kortmann and J. van der Auwera (eds), The Field of
Linguistics, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 269–87.
Vestberg, P. (1999), ‘Education of the Deaf in Denmark’, in H. W. Brelje (ed.), Global
Perspectives on the Education of the Deaf in Selected Countries, Hillsboro, OR:
Butte, pp. 59–68.
Volterra, V. (1983), ‘Gestures, signs and words at two years’, in J. G. Kyle and
B. Woll (eds), Language in Sign, London: Croom Helm, pp. 109–15.
Wallin, L. (1983), ‘Compounds in Swedish Sign Language in historical perspective’,
in J. G. Kyle and B. Woll (eds), Language in Sign, London: Croom Helm, pp.
56–68.
Watson, L (1998), ‘Oralism – current policy and practice’, in S. Gregory, P. Knight,
W. McCracken, S. Powers and L. Watson (eds), Issues in Deaf Education, London:
David Fulton, pp. 69–76.
Watson, L. and Parsons, J. (1998), ‘Supporting deaf pupils in mainstream settings’,
in S. Gregory, P. Knight, W. McCracken, S. Powers and L. Watson (eds), Issues in
Deaf Education, London: David Fulton, pp. 135–42.
Wheatley, M. and Pabsch, A. (2010), Sign Language Legislation in the European
Union, Brussels: European Union of the Deaf.
Wilbur, R. B. (1987), American Sign Language: Linguistic and Applied Dimensions,
Boston: Little, Brown.
Wilbur, R. B. (1994), ‘Foregrounding structures in American Sign Language’, Journal
of Pragmatics, 22, 674–72.
Wilcox, S. (2004a), ‘Cognitive iconicity: conceptual spaces, meaning and gesture in
signed languages’, Cognitive Linguistics, 15(2), 119–47.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 236 10/04/2012 11:00

References 237
Wilcox, S. (2004b), ‘Gesture and language: cross-linguistic and historical data from
signed languages’, Gesture, 4(1), 43–73.
Wilcox, S., Perrin-Wilcox, P. and Josep-Jarque, M. (2003), ‘Mappings in conceptual
space: metonymy, metaphor and iconicity in two signed languages’, Jezikoslovije,
4(1), 139–56.
Woll, B. (1998), ‘Development of signed and spoken languages’, in S. Gregory,
P. Knight, W. McCracken, S. Powers and L. Watson (eds), Issues in Deaf
Education, London: David Fulton, pp. 58–68.
Woll, B. (2003), ‘Modality, universality and the similarities across sign languages: an
historical perspective’, in A. Baker, B. van den Bogaerde and O. Crasborn (eds),
Cross-linguistic Perspectives in Sign Language Research. Selected Papers from
TISLR 2000, Hamburg: Signum, pp. 17–27.
Woll, B. and Sutton-Spence, R. (2007), ‘Sign languages’, in D. Britain (ed.), Language
in the British Isles, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 237 10/04/2012 11:00

Index of Names
Aarons, D., 44
Aikhenvald, A., 110
Allan, K., 109, 115
Ariel, M., 218
Armstrong, D. F., 3, 13, 140
Baker, C., 179
Baker, R., 41
Baker-Shenk, C., 24, 105, 106, 123,
174n
Battison, Robbin, 71, 86, 118, 202
Bellugi, Ursula, 96, 103, 106, 118
Bergman, Brita, 106, 118
Bloomeld, L., 91
Boyes Braem, P., 81, 89n, 129
Brelje, H. W., 41
Brennan, Mary, 76–7, 78–9, 90, 110,
111, 115, 116, 119, 121–2, 125, 131,
132–3, 134–6
Brien, D., 71
Brisard, F., 7
Brown, G., 188
Bybee, J.,107
Byrne-Dunne, Deirdre, 3, 26, 52
Chafe, W. L., 190
Cokely, D., 24, 105, 106, 123, 174n
Conama, John Bosco, 35, 36, 40, 47, 52
Conrad, R., 48
Conroy, P., 39, 40, 48, 49
Coogan, A., 33
Corker, M., 53
Crasborn, Onno, 75, 80
Crean, E. J., 33, 34, 35, 39, 40
Cutler, A., 90, 91
Dahl, Ö., 107
de Jorgio, A., 141
De Smet, H., 7
Deuchar, M., 43, 115
Dowty, D. R., 168
Dudis, Paul, 175, 187, 200, 218, 219
Eichen, E. B., 42, 53
Engberg-Pedersen, E., 3, 94, 95, 115,
184, 185, 186
Evans, V., 211
Fass, D. C., 211
Fauconnier, G., 183, 216, 217, 218
Fitzgerald, A., 81
Foley-Cave, Susan, 21, 179
Foley, W. A., 168, 169
Foran, Stanislus, J., 59n
Friedman, L. A., 78
Frishberg, N., 109, 115
Gascon-Ramos, M., 53
Geeraerts, D., 6, 7
Gillen, J., 50
Givón, T., 190, 218
Goldin-Meadow, S., 52, 54
Gorbet, L., 176
Green, M., 211
Grehan, Carmel, 34, 40, 48, 51, 81, 124n,
144–7, 169, 170
Grimes, J. E., 193
Heiling, K., 38, 41
Hockett, C., 103
Hoiting, N., 77
Ingram, R., 205
Jacobowitz, E. L., 190
James, T., 39, 41, 42, 48
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 238 10/04/2012 11:00

Janzen, Terry, 95, 141, 175, 180, 190,
208n
Johnson, M., 6, 132, 180, 210, 211, 213,
214
Johnston, Trevor, 10, 43, 47, 56, 62, 143,
160, 173
Karlsson, F., 17
Kegl, J. A., 109, 115
Kendon, A., 54, 143
Klima, E. S., 96, 103, 106, 118
Knight, P., 41
Knoors, H., 38, 58n
Kövecses, Z., 211, 212, 214, 222
Krausneker, V., 56
Kyle, Jim, 77, 78, 119
Ladd, Paddy, 46, 59n
Ladefoged, Peter, 60, 61
Lako, G., 131, 132, 180, 209, 210, 211,
212, 213, 214, 222n
Lane, Harlan, 36, 59n, 178
Langacker, R., 140
Lawson, L. K., 81
Leeson, Lorraine, 17, 21, 22, 23, 25–6,
30, 34, 36, 37, 40, 42, 46, 48, 51, 55,
56, 59n, 81, 105, 106, 108, 111, 112,
126, 131, 144–7, 161, 168–71, 172,
175–6, 180, 183, 189, 190–1, 199,
204, 205–6, 211, 212, 218, 219
LeMaster, B., 8, 40, 50–1, 82, 143, 144
Leonard, C., 3, 51
Liddell, Scott, K., 3, 18, 89n, 92, 94, 95,
105, 123, 175, 182, 187, 193, 197,
198, 201, 203, 204, 205, 206, 217
Lillo-Martin, D., 89n
List, G., 37
Loncke, F., 42
Lucas, Ceil, 20, 21
McDonnell, J., 128
McDonnell, Patrick, 8, 22, 29, 30–1, 32,
33, 34–5, 36, 37, 38, 40, 58n, 85, 86,
88, 96, 99, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114,
115, 130, 134, 170, 173
McNeill, D., 143
McQueen, J. M., 90, 91
MacSweeney, M., 42
Maguire, F., 77
Mandel, M., 18, 184
Marschark, M., 37, 41, 55
Mathews, E., 50, 55
Matthews, Patrick A., 8, 21, 24, 33, 34,
35, 39, 47, 58n, 59n, 62, 77, 79, 82,
88–9, 105, 108, 120, 123, 144, 173,
174n, 177, 178, 179–80
Mayberry, R., 42, 53
Meier, R., 184
Metzger, M., 184
Militzer, S., 82, 83, 85, 119, 129
Miller, C., 95, 184, 193, 204
Mindess, A., 46, 47
Morford, M., 54
Morgan, G., 175
Morris, D., 141
Mylander, C., 54
Nilsson, Anna-Lena, 62, 175, 182, 193,
196, 203
Nonhebel, A., 80
Nunberg, G., 211
Ó Baoill, Dónall, 8, 24, 62, 89, 105, 120,
123, 173, 174n
O’Dwyer, J. P., 8, 51, 143
Orpen, Charles E. H., 31, 32, 33, 58n
Pabsch, A., 56
Padden, C. A., 92, 95, 96, 179, 184
Pietrandrea, P., 9–10
Pizzutto, E., 9–10
Pollard, R., 32, 58n
Poulin, C., 95, 185
Powers, S., 41, 42
Radden, G., 211, 212
Rainó, P., 81
Reynolds, L., 44
Risler, A., 124n
Rosenstein, O., 25
Roy, C., 175
Rubino, C., 96
Saeed, John, I., 175–6, 193, 199, 204,
205, 206, 212, 218, 219
Sallandre, M.-A., 114, 124n
Sandler, W., 89n
Sapir, E., 91
Saunders, H., 40, 58n
Schembri, Adam, 3, 62, 109, 115, 143,
173
Schick, B., 115
Shaer, B., 141
Sheikh, H., 59n
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 239 10/04/2012 11:00

240 Irish Sign Language
Slobin, D. I., 77
Spencer, P. E., 37, 41, 55
Stalnaker, R., 180
Stokoe, William, C., 60, 70, 78, 89n,
190
Studdert-Kennedy, M., 140
Supalla, S., 109, 115, 151
Sutton-Spence, Rachel, 18, 19, 46, 71,
77, 79, 81, 86, 89n, 115, 123
Talmy, L., 122, 169, 193, 194
Tannen, D., 184
Taylor, J., 16
Thorvaldsdottir, Gudny, 72, 75–6
Timmermans, N., 56
Traugott, E., 142–3
Turner, M., 183, 218
Valli, Clayton, 20, 21
van der Kooij, Els, 76, 80
Van Herreweghe, M., 26, 178
Van Hoek, K., 217–18
Van Valin, R. D., 168, 169
Vermeerbergen, Myriam, 3, 17, 143
Verstraete, J. C., 7
Vestberg, P., 38
Volterra, V., 53
Wallin, Lars, 118, 121
Watson, L., 41
Wheatley, M., 56
Wilbur, Ronnie B., 25, 88, 109, 115
Wilcox, Phyllis, 176
Wilcox, Sherman, 3, 4, 125, 129, 133,
134, 139, 140–3, 148n
Woll, Bencie, 17, 18, 19, 32, 41, 42, 46,
53, 71, 77, 78, 86, 92, 115, 119, x
123
Yule, G., 188
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 240 10/04/2012 11:00

General Index
n = note; f = gure
acquisition see child language acquisition
adjectives, 21, 122–3, 149, 150, 152–3,
159
adverbs, 21, 41, 81, 85, 105, 123, 149,
159, 165–6
Agreement verbs see verbs
American Sign Language see ASL
ASL, 1, 24, 43, 58n, 88, 92, 94, 103,
105, 106, 109, 118, 123, 133, 141–2,
174n, 176, 180, 187, 196, 198, 199,
201, 203, 204, 205, 217, 218, 219
aspect, 8, 90, 102, 103–8, 123, 158
imperfective, 103, 107
iterative, 103
perfective, 103, 107–8
attention, gaining, 26, 176–8, 179, 207
Auslan, 2, 8, 10, 43–4, 57, 160, 173
Australia 2, 8, 28, 43–4
Australian Irish Sign Language, 43–4
Australian Sign Language see Auslan
backgrounding, 193–6, 219, 221
backwards agreement verb see verbs
blends, 9, 122, 176, 181, 182, 183, 184,
187, 206, 210, 216, 218, 219, 221
body partitioning, 99, 180, 181, 187,
200–1, 210
body-CL stems see classier(s)
borrowed signs, 34, 43, 121, 128, 131
British Sign Language see BSL
BSL, 1, 18, 19, 28, 32, 33, 43, 45, 46, 57,
76–7, 81–2, 111, 118, 123, 128, 131,
132–3, 135, 136, 148, 222n, 223n
buoy(s)
fragment, 15, 175, 176, 193, 198–201,
206, 207
list, 95, 189–90, 193, 198, 204–6,
207–8
pointer, 193, 198, 206–7
theme, 175, 176, 193, 198, 201–4, 207
Catalan Sign Language (LSC), 133, 134
cherology, 61–2
child language acquisition, 2, 8, 27, 28,
41–2, 52–6, 57, 148, 175
classier(s), 9, 22, 90, 91, 92, 94, 108–15,
123, 125, 131, 134, 136, 139, 143,
149, 160, 211
body-CL stems, 110, 113–15; see also
constraints
extension-CL stems, 110, 111–12
handle entity-CL stems, 110, 112–13
handshapes, 23, 91, 93, 100, 108–10,
109f, 121, 126, 127, 134, 149, 160,
169, 181
predicates, 9, 22, 90, 91, 92, 94, 108–15,
123, 125, 131, 134, 136, 139, 149,
211
size and shape speciers, 109, 110, 125,
127, 200
whole entity-CL stems, 110–11, 113
clause combining see syntax
c-locus, 91, 170, 185
compounds, 88, 90, 115–23, 123, 130,
134, 144
calque, 121, 151
constraints, 118–22
simultaneous, 115, 121–2
conceptual blending, 9, 216, 218–22; see
also blends
connectives see discourse
constituent order see syntax
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 241 10/04/2012 11:00

242 Irish Sign Language
constraints, 15, 77, 95, 166
on Body-CL stems, 114
on compounds, 118–22
perceptual, 85, 86
production, 85, 86–8
see also compounds; dominance
constraints; symmetry constraint
conversational interaction, 9, 176–80; see
also attention; politeness
co-ordination see syntax
dactylology, 37–8
Danish Sign Language (DSL), 94, 95,
184–5
deaf school(s) see St Joseph’s School for
Deaf Boys; St Mary’s School for
Deaf Girls, Limerick School for the
Deaf
discourse, 175–208
connectives, 171–2, 175, 191, 192, 207
turn-taking, 9, 26, 140, 175, 176, 178,
179, 207
see also attention; backgrounding; body
partitioning; buoy(s); connectives;
embodiment; event space;
foregrounding; in-lap; mirroring;
perspective; politeness; reference
shifting; specic time reference; topic
dominance constraint, 86–8, 119, 202
educational policy, 1, 30, 36–42, 50, 51,
52
embodiment, 6, 9, 180–2, 199, 209–10
established lexicon see lexicon
event space see space
extension-CL stems see classiers
eyeblink see NMFs
eyebrows see NMFs
eyegaze see NMFs
female signs, 50–1, 82, 130, 143–7; see
also variation
Flemish Sign Language, 160, 178
foregrounding, 184, 193–6, 219
fragment buoy see buoy(s): fragment
French Sign Language (LSF), 1, 6, 8, 33,
126, 127, 131, 141
gestural substrate, 126–7, 139–43, 148
gesture, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 25, 26–7, 27, 28, 37,
52, 53, 54, 130, 139–40, 148, 176,
178; see also mouth gestures
HamNoSys, 9, 72, 73–5f, 76
handle entity-CL stems see classiers
handshape(s), 62, 70–2, 72–6, 86–8
of ISL, 63–9f
see also classier(s): handshapes
head tilt see NMFs
head-nod see NMFs
headshake see negation
iconic signs, 10, 17, 18, 126, 128–9, 131–
4, 147; see also iconicity
iconicity, 5, 13, 16, 17, 18, 119, 125, 126,
131, 148, 196, 222
cognitive iconicity, 17, 131–2; see also
iconic signs
ID-gloss, 10
imperatives see sentence types
initialised signs, 18, 45, 46, 126, 127,
128–9, 150, 151
in-lap, 175, 193, 196–7
Italian Sign Language (LIS), 176
language variation see variation
lexicon, 125–7
established, 8, 125, 126, 127–34, 136,
139, 144, 147, 200
productive, 8, 21, 125, 126, 134–9,
148, 200, 211
Limerick School for the Deaf (Mid-
West School for hearing Impaired
Children), 35–6, 52, 57
list buoy see buoy(s): list
location, 9, 19, 60, 70, 71, 72, 86, 89, 91,
117, 128, 160, 176–7
in blends, 181, 219–21
of buoys, 206, 207
in compounds, 116, 119
in phonology, 76–7
of pronouns, 154–5, 158
in timelines, 166, 167
of verbs, 96–8, 108, 143, 168, 169, 170
see also loci
locative agreement verb see verbs
loci, 92–5; see also c-locus; location;
shifted locus
male signs, 50–1, 82–3, 128, 129, 144,
147, 197; see also variation
manner, 78, 114, 122–3, 140, 141, 159
mapping, 154, 156, 166, 168, 169, 174,
180, 182, 187, 195, 196, 203–4, 206,
209, 210, 211, 219, 221
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 242 10/04/2012 11:00

General Index 243
megablend, 176, 187, 188
mental spaces see space
metaphor, 5, 8, 9, 16, 17, 21, 77, 91, 126,
128, 131–2, 134–6, 139, 141–2, 148,
167, 180, 209, 211–15, 216
methodical signs, 33, 37–8
metonymy, 5, 9, 19, 126, 133, 134, 182,
209, 211–15, 222
Mid-West School for hearing Impaired
Children see Limerick School for
the Deaf
minimal pairs, 60, 61, 70, 71–2, 77, 79,
81, 84–5, 89
mirroring, 175, 196, 197–8
morphemes, 19, 90, 91–5, 109–10, 114,
116, 118, 119, 123, 125, 133, 136,
142, 148
bound, 91, 115, 121
free, 91, 115, 116, 121, 122
grammatical, 95–6
morphology see aspect; classiers;
compounds; loci; manner; number;
verb classes
mouth gestures, 71, 81–5, 89, 126, 141;
see also variation
mouthings, 2, 81–5, 89, 119, 129–30,
144; see also variation
movement, 91, 97, 98, 108, 110, 111, 112,
113, 140, 141, 176
of body, 6, 161
in compounds, 116, 118, 119
in ngerspelling 129, 151
of head, 79, 161, 163–4
of mouth see mouth gestures;
mouthings
in phonology, 19, 60, 70, 71, 72, 77–8,
86, 89, 131, 150
negation, 8, 21, 22–4, 163–5, 174
NMFs (non-manual features), 20, 60, 71,
79–85, 89, 91, 106, 123, 126, 144
in discourse, 179, 184–5
eyeblink, 25
eyebrows, 3, 24, 25, 26, 26f, 161, 162,
162f, 163f, 169, 173
eyegaze, 26, 62, 92, 94, 95, 170, 178,
180, 184, 183, 185, 187, 200, 212–13,
218–19, 221
head tilt, 23, 24, 25, 26, 26f, 161, 162,
169, 219
head-nod, 24, 25, 162, 169
headshake see negation
in syntax, 22–6, 150, 153, 161–3, 169,
173
torso, 3, 13, 22, 167, 167f, 184
see also mouth gestures; mouthings
noun(s), 151–4
phrases, 150–8
see also pronouns
number, 8, 100–3, 110, 157
ocial status of ISL, 56–7
o-stage view, 182, 187, 200
on-stage view, 181, 182, 187
oralism, 1–2, 36, 37, 38–40, 41, 44–5, 48,
50, 51, 58n, 82–3, 89, 130, 143, 144
orientation, 19, 60, 71–2, 78–9, 89, 198,
203, 204–5
parataxis see syntax
passives see syntax
perceptual constraints see constraints
person agreement verb see verbs
perspective, 6–7, 139, 180–3, 184–5, 186,
187, 199, 200, 201, 206, 208, 210
phonetics, 60–70, 72, 88
phonological processes, 85–8
phonology, 60, 61, 62, 70–88, 89, 91,
129, 201
plural see number
pointer buoy see buoy(s): pointer
pointing signs, 154, 155, 157, 158, 165–6,
203, 204f, 205, 218; see also buoy(s):
list, pointer, theme; loci
politeness, 9, 175, 178–80, 207
prepositions, 149, 160–1
production constraints see constraints
productive lexicon see lexicon
pronouns, 95, 150, 154–8, 185, 198, 206,
218
questions see sentence types
real space see space
real world knowledge, 9, 210–11
reference shifting, 95, 156, 184–6; see
also role shift; shifted locus
regional variation see variation
role shift, 95, 156, 175, 180–1, 184; see
also reference shifting; shifted locus
St Joseph’s School for Deaf Boys, 3, 34,
35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 45, 50, 58n, 82,
89, 130, 143, 148
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 243 10/04/2012 11:00

244 Irish Sign Language
St Mary’s School for Deaf Girls, 2, 3, 33,
35, 36, 38, 39, 44, 45, 48, 50, 58n,
82, 130, 143, 144, 148, 151
sentence types
imperatives, 8, 161–3
questions, 8, 81, 161–3, 165, 174n
statements, 8, 81, 161–3, 164–5
shifted locus, 95, 185, 186; see also
reference shifting; role shift
Signs of Ireland corpus (SOI), 2–4, 5, 7,
8, 9, 10, 23, 82, 83, 85, 86, 129, 154,
156, 160, 188, 192, 196
simultaneity, 8–9, 13, 14, 20, 81–2,
121, 168–71, 193, 194; see also
simultaneous constructions
simultaneous constructions, 6, 22, 160–1,
170–1, 174, 187, 193, 218–19; see
also simultaneity
size and shape speciers see classier(s)
South Africa, 2, 28, 43, 44–5
space
event, 176, 182–3
mental, 5, 9, 183, 216–18, 219–22
real, 206, 208, 218, 221
surrogate, 183, 184, 187, 200
token, 187
topographical, 92, 93, 195
specic time reference, 165, 190–1, 207
statements see sentence types
surrogate, 156, 172, 181–2, 183, 184, 185,
186
surrogate space see space
Swedish Sign Language (SSL), 107, 118,
121, 175, 196, 203
Swiss German Sign Language, 85
symmetry constraint, 86–7, 118, 119,
202
syntax
constituent order, 169–71, 174; see also
topic-comment
co-ordination, 171–2
clause combining, 172–3
parataxis, 171–2
passives, 170, 174, 181, 212, 218
topic-comment, 22, 24, 81, 168; see also
constituent order; topic
word order, 21, 22, 168, 170; see also
constituent order
see also negation; NMFs; sentence
types; simultaneity; topic
tense, 103, 130; see also time
theme buoy see buoy(s): theme
time, 8, 165–8, 210
metaphor, 132, 148
see also aspect; specic time reference;
timeline
timeline, mixed, 152
token, 187, 217, 218
token space see space
topic
in syntax, 21, 22, 24–6, 81, 153, 168,
169–70, 173, 174, 193
in discourse, 9, 175, 188–90, 191, 192,
204, 207, 219
topic-comment see syntax
topographical space see space
torso see NMFs
turn-taking see discourse
United Kingdom (UK), 28, 33, 38, 39,
41, 43, 45–6, 57
variation
age, 50–1, 40; see also variation in
mouth patterns
gender, 50–1, 40; see also variation in
mouth patterns
geographical (regional), 26, 27, 51–2, 57
in mouth patterns, 82–5
verb classes, 96–100
verbs, 158–9
agreement, 22, 23, 90, 94, 95,
96–100, 100–3, 158, 159, 168, 214:
backward, 98; locative, 23, 98–100,
103, 114; person, 78, 96, 97, 100,
102–3, 158, 168
auxiliary, 107, 149, 158
ditransitive, 159
intransitive, 159
main, 149, 158–9, 165
plain, 22, 96, 100, 159
transitive, 159
see also verb classes
viewpoint, 107, 139, 168, 170, 180–2,
182–3, 184, 186, 187, 195–6, 208,
210, 216–17, 219–20, 221–2
whole entity-CL stems see classiers
word order see syntax
words, 14, 17, 61, 62, 90–2, 127, 211
LEESON 9780748638239 PRINT.indd 244 10/04/2012 11:00