↓ Skip to main content

Sociolinguistic Typology and Sign Languages

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
30 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Sociolinguistic Typology and Sign Languages
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00200
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adam Schembri, Jordan Fenlon, Kearsy Cormier, Trevor Johnston

Abstract

This paper examines the possible relationship between proposed social determinants of morphological 'complexity' and how this contributes to linguistic diversity, specifically via the typological nature of the sign languages of deaf communities. We sketch how the notion of morphological complexity, as defined by Trudgill (2011), applies to sign languages. Using these criteria, sign languages appear to be languages with low to moderate levels of morphological complexity. This may partly reflect the influence of key social characteristics of communities on the typological nature of languages. Although many deaf communities are relatively small and may involve dense social networks (both social characteristics that Trudgill claimed may lend themselves to morphological 'complexification'), the picture is complicated by the highly variable nature of the sign language acquisition for most deaf people, and the ongoing contact between native signers, hearing non-native signers, and those deaf individuals who only acquire sign languages in later childhood and early adulthood. These are all factors that may work against the emergence of morphological complexification. The relationship between linguistic typology and these key social factors may lead to a better understanding of the nature of sign language grammar. This perspective stands in contrast to other work where sign languages are sometimes presented as having complex morphology despite being young languages (e.g., Aronoff et al., 2005); in some descriptions, the social determinants of morphological complexity have not received much attention, nor has the notion of complexity itself been specifically explored.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 2%
Unknown 49 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 26%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 5 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 29 58%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 7 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 December 2020.
All research outputs
#1,880,473
of 24,250,928 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#3,774
of 32,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,122
of 334,826 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#93
of 572 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,250,928 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,611 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,826 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 572 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.