28.524, Review: Ling & Lit; Pragmatics: Sutton-Spence, Kaneko (2016)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-28-524. Thu Jan 26 2017. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 28.524, Review: Ling & Lit; Pragmatics: Sutton-Spence, Kaneko (2016)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté,
                                   Michael Czerniakowski)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
                       Fund Drive 2016
                   25 years of LINGUIST List!
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Clare Harshey <clare at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 14:11:56
From: Melissa Wright [meliswright16 at gmail.com]
Subject: Introducing Sign Language Literature

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36198697


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/27/27-2012.html

AUTHOR: Rachel  Sutton-Spence
AUTHOR: Michiko  Kaneko
TITLE: Introducing Sign Language Literature
SUBTITLE: Folklore and Creativity
PUBLISHER: Palgrave Macmillan
YEAR: 2016

REVIEWER: Melissa Wright, Northern Illinois University

Reviews Editor: Helen Aristar-Dry

SUMMARY

“Introducing Sign Language Literature” (Sutton-Spence & Kaneko, 2016) presents
the topic of sign language as it applies to the deaf community’s literature.
The authors allow the reader to bring in previous knowledge of sign language,
or come in as a brand new learner. Providing basic terminology and signs,
Sutton-Spence and Kaneko provide an illustration of literature that utilizes
sign language operated by a performer in relation to the audience. By
providing the setting in which literature is created or adapted, readers are
able to picture the stage which holds the performer (the signer) and what the
audience may be experiencing during a literary performance. The text provides
the basic building blocks for understanding sign language literature, and
forges a path for multidisciplinary research. The reader is left with a better
understanding of a community that does not often get much attention, and an
appreciation for the signed live performances. 

In addition to supplying the fundamental components of sign language,
Sutton-Spence and Kaneko’s (2016) research creates an open dialogue between
those who are fluent in sign language, linguists, and novice sign language
learners. The authors break down the topic into the fundamental concepts that
weave together to create the overall culture of the literature being
discussed. The beginning chapters break down the topic into basic ideas, even
discussing the overlaps and differences between sign language literature,
mime, and oral literature/performance pieces; these chapters also introduce
the different types of stories that are part of the literature within the
signing community. The reader is able to piece together these seemingly
elementary building blocks to form a concrete idea of what differentiates sign
language literature.  As these basic components are illustrated, the chapters
begin to introduce broader components such as neologism, handshapes, and
style. This ensures that the reader is able to follow along, even as a novice.
For those who are not new to sign language, the information may serve as a
reminder, or as a review using a literary lens.

EVALUATION

The book offers perspective on the deaf community and their way of creating
and passing along literary tales. Sutton-Spence and Kaneko (2016) break down
the topic into conceptual chapters that exemplify the elementary concepts
which make up sign language literature, and proceed to the broader components
that contribute to the overall community of the deaf culture. What makes this
book interesting is the underlying message that sign language should be
considered an independent language which is able to express complex and new
ideas. The authors explain that the general thought used to be that those who
are deaf are disabled and use signing to express a limited number of ideas;
however, the covert theme throughout the book is that sign language literature
allows signers to express themselves in a creative, culturally rich manner,
and this is evidence that sign language should be considered a true autonomous
language.  

Another interesting facet of the book is that it allows for a plethora of
applications within potential classroom settings. For example, the book is
able to illustrate the culture behind the deaf community using basic aspects
of human expression such as sense of humor, metaphor, and tragedy. Because the
reader is then able to picture the interaction within the signing community,
this book has many anthropological implications – it is able to provide a
glimpse of the group’s ideas and cognition. Because there is an implication
that the deaf community has its own schemas, this means that it is a culture
in its own right, which has its own literary genre, just as any other
population does. 

Sutton-Spence and Kaneko’s (2016) text also allows for many linguistic
functions. The field of linguistics often focuses on the mechanisms and
underlying processes that comprise a language; this book treats aspects of
these mechanisms and processes within sign language. For instance, the book
asserts that when a literary signing performance has ended, “the final sign
often has a noticeably larger or sharper movement, and holding it longer than
any other sign makes it appear ‘louder’ or more sonorous” (p. 88). Obviously,
this may interest many phonologists who understand the word “sonorous” to mean
“singable,” (O’Grady, Archibald, Aronoff, Rees-Miller, 2010); however,
phonology in sign language is not a brand new topic. “Hand shape is considered
a phonological feature, because the meanings of different signs can be
differentiated on the basis of hand shape” (Traxler, 2012, p. 449). The
previously mentioned application of the word “sonorous” would lend itself well
to future research regarding sign language as a language that allows for
degrees of sonorance and different pronunciations which rely on the use of
one’s hands. 

The book also, as mentioned before, introduces the idea of the signer
performing for an audience – if the speaker is not getting the desired
reaction from his or her audience, the story may be adjusted to fit the
audience, even if it is a story that was written by someone else (i.e. a fairy
tale such as “Sleeping Beauty”). Sutton-Spence and Kaneko (2016) make a point
to mention the fact that while cameras may be present at signing performances
and the piece may be recorded, certain aspects of the show may be lost. “When
the story is performed live, the presence of the audience can be very
influential but even in recordings of sign language stories, the literary
event is only complete when the audience has seen it and responded to it”
(Sutton-Spence & Kaneko, 2016, p. 15). Thus, these performances have an innate
component of improvisation within them. Also within these performances is the
idea of the performer “becoming” the object of the story. For example, the
authors provide the instance of a performer, Richard Carter, who has a talking
reindeer in his story. The performer allows himself to have antlers by placing
his hands on top of his head and allowing the antlers to do the signing when
the reindeer needs to speak (Sutton-Spence & Kaneko, 2016). These elements of
the performance could be very helpful in a theater or performance class, where
students or novice performers may want information on how to portray a
character or how to read to an audience.  This section also provides a
possible path for potential future research: discourse analysis between
performer and audience. Since the two parties are so involved in the story
telling and have ways of conveying messages with each other throughout the
event, this particular aspect of sign language literature may deserve a closer
look using a discourse-oriented lens.

Obviously, as stated in the title, the book also introduces the literature of
the deaf community. It is helpful to study the literature of a given community
to help understand that group’s values and way of life. Therefore, the book
would also be helpful in literary courses addressing non-traditional
literature. And, because the text breaks down the information into elementary
levels, it has the potential to also be of service within an introductory sign
language course. The authors, in the “Conventions” section at the beginning of
the book, give the reader a list of commonly used handshapes, as well as
general terminology that proves useful as the reader progresses through the
text and encounters more complex sign language literature themes.

Writing courses may also benefit from this text; Chapter 19 in the text
addresses signers who have different styles when they perform. Illustrating
these styles  allows the reader to gain a clearer understanding not only of
sign language literature, but also of the performer. The performer tells a
clear story while injecting parts of his or her personality into the signing
style – something novice writers may be able to relate to when trying to find
their own voice within their written works.

An interesting note that Sutton-Spence and Kaneko (2016) make in Chapter 9,
“Plots, Protagonists, Subjects and Themes,” is that within signed literature,
whether or not the protagonist in the story is deaf is an important matter.
When a protagonist is able to share the audience’s and the storyteller’s
experience being deaf, it allows the audience to more intensely relate to that
person. And while a common theme in signed literature is having a non-human as
the subject, often this subject also demonstrates signing abilities. In
addition, a common theme when using non-human subjects is that a deaf person
within the story is often seen as privileged. 

''In sign language literature, some characters cannot see the non-humans’
language … in sign language literature non-humans decide when to sign, and who
the privileged humans are to whom they sign. Deaf people, and especially deaf
children, are likely to be the privileged humans'' (p. 78).

This, as the authors explain, is in contrast to how hearing people are often
portrayed in stories – they are sometimes referred to as “them,” and they can
be the antagonists or provide comical relief. “[Hearing people] may be
characterized as ignorant, patronizing, bullies who oppress deaf people, or as
fools. ‘Hyper-hearing’ people who react nervously to sound (especially sounds
made by a deaf person) are frequent butts of deaf narratives and deaf jokes”
(p. 47). While some of these scenarios may seem humorous, Sutton-Spence and
Kaneko make a noteworthy observation that the deaf community’s definition of
comedy and tragedy may be different from the hearing community’s. Within the
signing population, a comedy doesn’t necessarily have to provoke laughter, but
rather, it frequently serves to provide understanding at the end of a story.
In regard to tragedies, sign language literature supplies many examples of
stories with tragic endings; however, the events leading up to the tragedy may
be humorous. This contrast in the two communities’ definitions of tragedy and
comedy is a reason why this text would do well within a cultural studies
context. 

Sutton-Spence and Kaneko’s (2016) book provides a plethora of information in
easily accessible chapters which analyze the components of sign language
literature. The authors provide a space that not only allows for an open
dialogue about sign language literature, but also the broader applications
that the components address (i.e. improvisation, phonetics, cultural studies,
etc.). The text does well in addressing the overlap between oral literature,
performance pieces, and sign language literature, while maintaining the
distinct characteristics of sign language literature. The subtle argument of
sign language deserving to be characterized as an autonomous language in its
own right provides a starting point for future linguistic research. Overall,
the authors delve into a subject which seems to be under-studied, but one that
can prove useful in many contexts and in a myriad of future research
endeavors.

References

O’Grady, W., Archibald, J., Aronoff, M., & Rees-Miller, J. (2010).
Contemporary linguistics: An introduction (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Bedford/St.
Martin’s.

Sutton-Spence, R., & Kaneko, M. (2016). Introducing sign language literature:
Folklore & creativity. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Traxler, M. J. (2012). Introduction to psycholinguistics: Understanding
language science. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

I am Melissa Wright, a graduate student at Northern Illinois University
studying linguistics. My anticipated completion date is May of 2017.
Currently, I am in the process of writing my master's thesis, which emphasizes
natural language processing (NLP) and syntax. My other research interests
include theoretical syntax, culinary linguistics, cognitive linguistics, sign
language and how it applies to humans' innate linguistic abilities, and
pragmatics.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
                       Fund Drive 2016
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

        Thank you very much for your support of LINGUIST!
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-28-524	
----------------------------------------------------------