What do you think?
Rate this book
Australian Sign Language (Auslan): An introduction to sign language linguistics
This is first comprehensive introduction to the linguistics of Auslan, the sign language of Australia. Assuming no prior background in language study, it explores each key aspect of the structure of Auslan, providing an accessible overview of its grammar (how sentences are structured), phonology (the building blocks of signs), morphology (the structure of signs), lexicon (vocabulary), semantics (how meaning is created), and discourse (how Auslan is used in context). The authors also discuss a range of myths and misunderstandings about sign languages, provide an insight into the history and development of Auslan, and show how Auslan is related to other sign languages, such as those used in Britain, the USA and New Zealand. Complete with clear illustrations of the signs in use and useful further reading lists, this is an ideal resource for anyone interested in Auslan, as well as those seeking a clear, general introduction to sign language linguistics.
321 pages, Paperback
First published June 29, 1905
24 people are currently reading
84 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
January 23, 2015
This book has a seriously misleading title. You would be forgiven for thinking that it is a textbook designed to teach you Auslan (Australian Sign Language), but in fact its remit is far broader. Johnston and Schembri certainly tell you a good deal about Auslan, since they strongly believe that linguistics is about the concrete realities of language; in contrast to Neidle et al, which I read a couple of months ago, there are few tree diagrams and a great many pictures of people making signs (Neidle is the other way round). This wealth of detail, however, is directed towards the examination of some decidedly ambitious questions. What are sign languages, really? In fact, what are languages in the first place? We discover that the existence of these soundless linguistic systems lets us review many of our assumptions from a new and revealing angle.
As the authors say, one of the persistent myths in this area is that sign language is just gesturing, and not a real language at all; a lot of people believed this until the 1960s, and deaf children were not allowed to sign at school because it was supposed to interfere with their ability to learn spoken language. Then linguists, William Stokoe being the most famous one, started to investigate the formal properties of sign, and the received wisdom rapidly swung a full 180 degrees. ASL and Auslan, we're now told, are just as much "languages" as English and French, and anyone who argues with this is in danger of being labeled a language imperialist. But is it so clear? It probably helps that the authors are Australians, a nationality who have little time for political correctness. They encourage you to look at the facts and draw your own conclusions.
So to what extent are signs just natural gestures? Some signs are obvious: for example, "I" is signed by pointing at yourself, and "you" by pointing at the other person. Other signs, however, are completely opaque: you wouldn't know that stroking your cheek meant "woman" without being told. As usual, of course, anecdotal evidence doesn't get us very far, but the authors try to orient us. Many sign languages have no common ancestry, but despite this there is a high proportion of vocabulary overlap, perhaps as much as 30-40%, even between unrelated sign languages. That's far higher than for spoken languages, and suggests that sign languages are to quite a large extent based on principles of iconicity, i.e. natural gestures.
J&S also devote a good deal of space to consideration of "classifier constructions", which Neidle et al hardly mention. If you want to sign something involving spatial relationships, you typically use a sequence which at least superficially resembles a little piece of handpuppet play-acting. For example, to sign "The man went over and stood in front of the car", you sign MAN and CAR, then use one hand with two fingers pointing down to represent the man and the other hand with a flat palm to represent the car: you move the "man" hand in front of the "car" hand, if necessary using the form of the movement to suggest that the man did it eagerly, hesitantly, or what have you.
Classifier constructions are very common. Again, is this language or gesture? No one seems quite sure. A language is a conventionalized system of communication; it's apparently difficult in many cases to decide the extent to which signs have become lexicalized, and hence part of a conventional language. Classifier constructions seem like little free-form playlets, but some researchers argue that they are governed by subtle rules which are not immediately obvious. As the authors constantly say, much more research is needed before we will properly understand how signed languages work. Their preferred view, which they stress is not shared by all people in the sign language linguistics community, is that signed languages are young languages still at an early stage of their evolution. They change rapidly, and creativity of individual users plays an important part. In general, J&S think that creativity is an aspect of language that has been undervalued by theoreticians, particularly ones working in Chomskyan frameworks. They warn against over-rigid application of theoretical principles.
The book concludes by suggesting that signed languages may be able to give us fundamental insights into the very nature of language, which could end up forcing us to revise some of our most basic assumptions. The funny thing is that we shouldn't have needed to wait until the early 21st century to have this conversation. Plato's Cratylus, one of the earliest surviving texts on linguistics, actually opens with a discussion of sign and uses it to argue that iconocity is central to language. If J&S are right, Plato may have been closer to the truth than many later thinkers. I found it all quite fascinating. If you're also curious about the nature of language, I strongly encourage you to get acquainted with this remarkable new subject.
As the authors say, one of the persistent myths in this area is that sign language is just gesturing, and not a real language at all; a lot of people believed this until the 1960s, and deaf children were not allowed to sign at school because it was supposed to interfere with their ability to learn spoken language. Then linguists, William Stokoe being the most famous one, started to investigate the formal properties of sign, and the received wisdom rapidly swung a full 180 degrees. ASL and Auslan, we're now told, are just as much "languages" as English and French, and anyone who argues with this is in danger of being labeled a language imperialist. But is it so clear? It probably helps that the authors are Australians, a nationality who have little time for political correctness. They encourage you to look at the facts and draw your own conclusions.
So to what extent are signs just natural gestures? Some signs are obvious: for example, "I" is signed by pointing at yourself, and "you" by pointing at the other person. Other signs, however, are completely opaque: you wouldn't know that stroking your cheek meant "woman" without being told. As usual, of course, anecdotal evidence doesn't get us very far, but the authors try to orient us. Many sign languages have no common ancestry, but despite this there is a high proportion of vocabulary overlap, perhaps as much as 30-40%, even between unrelated sign languages. That's far higher than for spoken languages, and suggests that sign languages are to quite a large extent based on principles of iconicity, i.e. natural gestures.
J&S also devote a good deal of space to consideration of "classifier constructions", which Neidle et al hardly mention. If you want to sign something involving spatial relationships, you typically use a sequence which at least superficially resembles a little piece of handpuppet play-acting. For example, to sign "The man went over and stood in front of the car", you sign MAN and CAR, then use one hand with two fingers pointing down to represent the man and the other hand with a flat palm to represent the car: you move the "man" hand in front of the "car" hand, if necessary using the form of the movement to suggest that the man did it eagerly, hesitantly, or what have you.
Classifier constructions are very common. Again, is this language or gesture? No one seems quite sure. A language is a conventionalized system of communication; it's apparently difficult in many cases to decide the extent to which signs have become lexicalized, and hence part of a conventional language. Classifier constructions seem like little free-form playlets, but some researchers argue that they are governed by subtle rules which are not immediately obvious. As the authors constantly say, much more research is needed before we will properly understand how signed languages work. Their preferred view, which they stress is not shared by all people in the sign language linguistics community, is that signed languages are young languages still at an early stage of their evolution. They change rapidly, and creativity of individual users plays an important part. In general, J&S think that creativity is an aspect of language that has been undervalued by theoreticians, particularly ones working in Chomskyan frameworks. They warn against over-rigid application of theoretical principles.
The book concludes by suggesting that signed languages may be able to give us fundamental insights into the very nature of language, which could end up forcing us to revise some of our most basic assumptions. The funny thing is that we shouldn't have needed to wait until the early 21st century to have this conversation. Plato's Cratylus, one of the earliest surviving texts on linguistics, actually opens with a discussion of sign and uses it to argue that iconocity is central to language. If J&S are right, Plato may have been closer to the truth than many later thinkers. I found it all quite fascinating. If you're also curious about the nature of language, I strongly encourage you to get acquainted with this remarkable new subject.
Read
March 8, 2020dnfing
it didn't happen this time folks!
it didn't happen this time folks!
September 23, 2020
Syksyn tenttikirjoja. Kumma kyllä, kiinnostavimmat asiat tuntuivat olevan tenttialueen ulkopuolella. Itse tenttialueen asiat kun olivat jo jossain määrin tuttuja entuudestaan.
April 28, 2020
Some useful aspects of Auslan covered but overall this book is very theoretical and not very helpful to practical application. I am passionate about Auslan but by around the 70% I began to get bored and skip read. Would suit students of linguistics rather than people learning to communicate fluently in Auslan. The history and origins however were very interesting.
February 10, 2024
Rating: 4 stars (8/10)
Review:
Review:
April 16, 2014
Fun to read about another signed language.
July 28, 2015
IT was very well written, very informative, and gave me everything I needed. I enjoyed reading it very much.
June 16, 2016
A wonderful, comprehensive book about Auslan! So much learnt in such as short space of time! :)
December 31, 2016
Fun to read about another signed language.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews