The following article undertakes another analysis of affixation in Polish Sign Language (PJM). This time the question concerns affixes carrying temporal significance. In a previous issue of this journal, negative affixation in PJM was discussed. As it turns out, in addition to these negative morphemes, PJM also possesses suffixes that relate to time: year, day, hour, minute and second. It has been observed that these affixes have undergone partial or complete grammaticalization. As discussed in this paper, there are some restrictions on the use of temporal suffixes, which are caused by numeral incorporation. In addition to these affixes, there are also two morphemes in PJM, which do not represent a time measure. One of these signifies the completion of an educational stage and the other refers to the future performance of an action.

This article offers a brief overview of historical linguistics and explores the value of historical sign linguistics. The specific focus of the article is on the question of the extent to which the concept of "sign language families" is a legitimate and useful one. It is suggested that although lateral transmission and interference may account for a great deal of the similarity between and among sign languages, descent from a common linguistic ancestor (as in the cases of American Sign Language and French Sign Language) can also often be documented. It is observed that sign languages seem to change at a much more rapid rate than do spoken languages, but this is suggested to have at least as much to do with factors such as the intragenerational transmission of most sign languages as any other variable. Finally, it is argued that regardless of its status in historical linguistics more generally, lexicostatistics has consistently been demonstrated to be a powerful methodological tool in understanding the relationships between and among different sign languages.

Australian Indigenous sign languages are predominantly used by hearing people as a replacement for speech in certain cultural contexts. In some circumstances sign is used alongside speech, and in others it may replace speech altogether. This article provides a window on some of the articulatory dimensions of these sign languages by examining the distribution of the "horns" handshape in repertoires of sign from a range of communities in Central and Northern Australia. The horns handshape is notable as it is one of the more common handshapes found, at least in some of the sign languages used in Australian Indigenous communities. This contrasts with the apparent infrequency of this handshape in some other sign languages of the world. By implementing a methodology that takes the interconnections between sign and speech into account, the article explores loose networks of semantic association in signs that employ this handshape and assesses evidence of semantic motivation for its use in sets of related signs.

This study contributes to research in the field of phonology of sign languages, focusing on the occurrence of assimilation of signs. The objective of the study is to analyze assimilation cases present in the text genre "joke" in Brazilian Sign Language (Libras), as well as influences of the immediate context on their occurrence. We understand that assimilation occurs when one unit takes features from another unit next to it (Liddell and Johnson 1989; Valli et al. 2011; Resende 2012). Thus, four jokes were selected from the YouTube video platform and signs that show the process of assimilation were selected to constitute our corpus. The data were analyzed qualitatively. Based on the corpus and on the analyses, we found that the tendency, in the four jokes in Libras that we investigated, is that one-hand signs affect one-hand signs in a progressive and strong way. Therefore, we conclude that it is possible to hypothesize that assimilation occurs as a principle of linguistic economy, considering that the sign unit that is assimilated into the other would be very distant from the unit (previous or subsequent) of the sign, which would be antieconomic.

Reviewed by: The Academic Foundations of Interpreting Studies: An Introduction to Its Theories by Cynthia B. Roy, Jeremy L. Brunson, and Christopher A. Stone Lorraine Leeson (bio) The Academic Foundations of Interpreting Studies: An Introduction to Its Theories, by Cynthia B. Roy, Jeremy L. Brunson, and Christopher A. Stone. (Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 2019, hardcover, 224 pages, $70.00, ISBN: 978-1-944838-38-6) This textbook presents an introduction to six disciplines that have served as foundational pillars on which the multidisciplinary—or, indeed, transdisciplinary—field of interpreting studies is founded. Across eight chapters, Cynthia Roy, Jeremy Brunson, and Christopher Stone present an introduction to the fields of history, translation, linguistics, sociology and anthropology, social psychology, and cognitive psychology. The authors consider how the "lens" of each of these disciplines has impacted interpreting studies. Written for undergraduates in the field of interpreting or early stage postgraduates, this volume assumes no prior knowledge of the disciplines it introduces and seeks to provide a baseline overview of these broad subject domains. When relating macrolevel issues such as the credentialing of interpreters, the authors focus primarily on three main geographic zones: the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Each chapter begins with a framing paragraph and a set of learning outcomes and ends with questions that prompt reflection on key issues addressed. Each section references the work of authors who draw on a range of subject-specific—and, indeed, interdisciplinary—approaches and work in each subject area that relates to spoken and sign language interpreting studies. The authors also present their own research to profile key points they raise. Chapter 1 sets the scene and discusses "The Discipline of Interpreting Studies." The authors note that, fundamentally, science and [End Page 533] scientific theories are concerned with aiding our understanding or explaining a certain class of empirical phenomena. Chapter 2 considers interpreting studies "Through the Lens of History." This chapter discusses the history of translation and interpreting, presenting vignettes of interpreters in ancient Egypt, the Ottoman Court, and religious and legal settings in the United States and the United Kingdom. The chapter goes on to consider how the role of the interpreter evolved over time from "helper" to "conduit" and toward a point where interpreters consider themselves to be a practice profession. The authors discuss the establishment of professional organizations in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia, along with consideration of how interpreter education and the credentialing of interpreters has evolved to date, a theme that they revisit across the volume. Key questions are woven into each section, allowing for interpreter educators to facilitate consideration of changes in practice over time, such as in the domain of legal interpreting. This enables use of this chapter in foundational courses that introduce students to the profession of interpreting, and it situates the profession temporally. In chapter 3, the authors invite us to consider interpreting studies "Through the Lens of Translation," suggesting that translation studies is the de facto "big sister" of interpreting studies. This chapter sets out to define, discuss, and debate the concept of equivalence and introduce learners to other key terms in translation studies. Seminal authors in translation studies are introduced, including Friedrich Schleirmacher, Eugene Nida, Mona Baker, Ian Mason, Basil Hatim, Lawrence Venuti, Mary Snell-Hornby, and Gideon Toury, along with the patron saint of translation, St. Jerome. The chapter references key concepts (e.g., dynamic versus formal equivalence, foreignizing/domesticating strategies, faithfulness) and theories and methods (e.g., Skopos Theory, contrastive analysis, the "cultural turn"). It also offers examples of work on sign language translation that are nested within the translation studies discipline, notably Christopher Stone's work on deaf translation norms (Stone 2009). The chapter ends by reflecting that "it is inevitable that interpreting studies would borrow many of its major concepts, theories, and methodologies from translation studies" (76). Chapter 4 addresses the lens of linguistics. The authors set out to introduce readers to the basic characteristics of language, and they [End Page 534] delve particularly into sociolinguistic and discourse-driven approaches to language analysis. The field of modern linguistics is introduced. As in earlier chapters, this is done by considering the seminal authors associated with...

Linguistic Ethnography

The internet has become a space where many sign language users post, watch, and share videos and video blogs (vlogs) through social media. This mass of videos produced by, for, and with deaf signers on the internet has yielded a new language ecology that also offers new opportunities for sign language research. We demonstrate how sign language researchers can use the internet for linguistic "fieldwork" by harnessing available, naturalistic sign language data from this online corpus of videos. We discuss a preliminary case study of first-person pronouns based on two vlogs, as a way of offering some practical guidelines for researchers who want to conduct methodologically valid sign language internet-based corpus studies. This case study examines the potential the internet offers for future research advancing the field of sign language linguistics.

Grammar of Polish Sign Language as Compared to Grammar of Polish Language:Selected Themes Wiktor Eźlakowski (bio) The common knowledge about Polish Sign Language (PJM, pronounced peh-yote-em)—despite its two-hundred-year history—remains limited. That lack of knowledge has given birth to many myths about the language, which distort its image in society. In his 2004 article "Polski Język Migowy (PJM)—mity i fakty" (Polish Sign Language [PJM]—Myths and Facts), Piotr Tomaszewski deals with some of the beliefs held about PJM. One of them is the idea that "PJM is a 'derivative' of the spoken language" (Tomaszewski 2004, 60; this and following translations are my own). This myth, probably the most widespread and commonly believed, considers PJM to be a visual representation of spoken Polish. According to this thinking, a signed utterance is based on the same grammar as a spoken utterance and can be translated "sign for word." Unfortunately, this myth is not uncommon among scientists, including some linguists. It is reasonable to distinguish at this point between PJM and the Language-Sign System (SJM), also known as Signed Polish. The beginning of PJM can be traced back to 1817 when Father Jakub Falkowski established a boarding school in Warszawa called the Institute for the Deaf-Mute. Subsequently, the language of the Polish Deaf community [End Page 518] began to develop (Perlin 1993). In 1879, just sixty-two years after the establishment of the institute, Father Józef Hollak and Father Teofil Jagodziński published Słownik mimiczny dla głuchoniemych i osób z nimi styczność mających (The Mimic Dictionary for the Deaf-Mute and Persons Having Contact with Them). It was the first dictionary of PJM and one of the first dictionaries of a sign language (Hollak and Jagodziński 1879). SJM, on the other hand, began in the 1960s through the work of Professor Bogdan Szczepankowski. The system combines signs belonging to PJM with the grammar of spoken Polish. The goal of it was to serve as a bridge between the two languages—it is used mainly by teachers who do not know PJM to teach deaf students (Rutkowski and Czajkowska-Kisil 2010, 66). That is why SJM retains the grammar of spoken Polish. Unlike PJM, however, it is not the natural language of the Polish Deaf community, but an artificially created system (Łukaszewska 2010, 18). According to some researchers, PJM and SJM are two extremes of a spectrum, in which the idiolects of signers fall—either closer to the language side or closer to the system side (Tomaszewski and Piekot 2015, 64). Polish linguists analyzing PJM agree that it is a natural language, independent of the spoken language. It possesses its own grammar, which is very different from that of spoken Polish (Łozińska 2012, 90). This observation is not new and can be traced back to the 1990s when Michael Farris first took up the linguistic question of PJM (Farris 1994). The aim of this article is to discuss selected aspects of PJM grammar. I am not presenting a full and complex linguistic description of PJM. By presenting select aspects of the grammar, I wish to help disperse some knowledge of its structure. Facial Expressions PJM grammar is not based solely on manual elements but also on nonmanual elements. Facial expressions play an extremely important role in PJM grammar. Tomaszewski writes that "[in] PJM there exist different types of facial expressions serving morphological roles in creating various visual sentences" (Tomaszewski 2004, 62). Keeping the correct word order, but ignoring the right facial expression, we are not able to distinguish between, for example, a declaratory sentence and an interrogatory sentence (Fabisiak 2010, 190). The correct facial [End Page 519] expression plays a similar role to phonetic intonation. Where in spoken Polish a question and a statement with the same word order can only be distinguished by different intonations, in PJM they can only be distinguished by different facial expressions. To illustrate, we can combine two signs: she and sick. By not changing our facial expression while going from one sign to the next, we express a statement. In order to change a declaratory sentence into a question...

Mobile filmmaking as a methodology in linguistic ethnography of deaf languaging practices results in multilayered, "thick" data that moves analysis beyond bounded sign languages. These recordings allow us to examine what people do, rather than what they say they do. Ethnographic film is not only documentation, or dissemination of research; it is also an opportunity to elicit metalinguistic data through reflective discussions with audiences about the languaging practices shown in the film. The use of film showcases the data itself, allowing for an analysis of the diversity of communicative repertoires and modalities used by people as they communicate with each other. To illustrate this, I will discuss an example from my fieldwork in Indonesia, linking to an uploaded video of an encounter between a deaf tourist and hearing worker in the Ubud Monkey Forest that shows how deaf people are able to rapidly move from strategy/modality to strategy/modality (e.g., pointing, using a smartphone to type a note or translate a word, gesturing, and mouthing). The use of filmmaking in mobile ethnography reveals the spatial, modal, and semiotic affordances and constraints in individual communicative encounters, as well as the ways in which deaf people leverage or surmount them. Finally, mobile ethnographic filmmaking draws attention to the research participants themselves and their perspectives, showing what they do as they communicate, which can later be used to elicit more data during audience reception discussions. This is especially [End Page 572] important in research with groups that may have differential access to academic discourse.

Reviewed by: The Legal Recognition of Sign Languages: Advocacy and Outcomes around the World ed. by Maartje De Meulder, Joseph J. Murray and Rachel L. McKee J. Albert Bickford (bio) The Legal Recognition of Sign Languages: Advocacy and Outcomes around the World, ed. Maartje De Meulder, Joseph J. Murray and Rachel L. McKee (Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 2019, 352 pages. Hardbound $149.95, ISBN 978-1-7889-2400-9; Paperback $49.95, ISBN 978-1-7889-2399-6; PDF $40.00, ISBN 978-1-7889-2401-6; ePUB $40.00, ISBN 978-1-7889-2402-3) This new volume presents a set of case studies about the legal status of sign languages in eighteen countries and regions, as examples of advocacy and language planning at the national and regional levels. More than just a discussion of laws, these studies explore their social context, the processes by which they came to be enacted, and their effectiveness. Although the book is not intended as a how-to guide for developing sign language legislation, these varying situations can still serve as models for language activists, providing a framework for planning sign language advocacy and outlining strategies, realistic expectations, and pitfalls. Many of these studies are the first of their kind in their respective countries and reflect recent events and ongoing developments. The authors of the individual case studies were participantobservers in the campaigns described. At least one coauthor of each study is deaf, reflecting a broader theme that emerges from the studies: success in enacting and implementing legislation depends on broadbased collaboration between deaf community members and academic and political allies, some of whom have no prior involvement with deaf people. This broad perspective—academic, political, and social—is one of the strengths of the book. The editors' introduction makes a key distinction (following De Meulder 2015) between explicit and implicit legal recognition. [End Page 699] Explicit recognition accords a sign language status as a language, whereas implicit recognition treats sign language in the context of laws addressing other issues, such as disability or education. Many laws take a hybrid approach, incorporating both types of recognition. A key influence in many countries has been the adoption of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) in 2006, an example of implicit recognition. Still, since the 1990s, there has been increasing interest in explicit recognition, from the perspective of linguistic human rights, especially in Europe. Laws generally address concerns such as the right of deaf children and their families to learn and use a sign language, educational practices, use in general or in specific situations, instrumental rights such as sign language interpreters and captioning, and corpus planning such as dictionaries and instructional materials, among others. These laws may be modeled on legislation for minority spoken languages in a country, but they often do not achieve equal status with them. The case studies are organized into four main sections. Part 1 presents four recent "success stories," laws recently enacted (in Ireland, Korea, Malta, and Scotland). Part 2 describes five situations where recognition is implicit (in Turkey, Japan, United States, Chile, and France). Part 3 present three ongoing campaigns (in Netherlands, Italy, and Norway) that have not yet succeeded. However, just getting a law on the books is not sufficient; there must be ongoing implementation of its provisions, and such challenges are discussed in the final six countries (Austria, New Zealand, Iceland, Brazil, Catalunya, and Belgium). Thirteen of the countries/regions represented are European or more broadly Western. Only two are in South America (Brazil, Chile) and three in Asia (Japan, Korea, Turkey). This imbalance, of course, reflects greater progress towards legal support for sign languages in Europe, as documented in Wheatley and Pabsch (2012). It is understandable that the editors were limited in their selection by who offered to contribute to the volume. Still, we should hope there will eventually be a broader survey of efforts in other parts of the world, particularly Africa, to provide understanding of how these issues manifest themselves in a wider variety of cultural and legal systems. [End Page 700] A closing epilogue summarizes the main themes that emerge from the case studies. In some countries, legislators...