Language of Signs vs. Sign Language: Equivalence Issues of French and Russian Terms in Metalanguage of Gestural Communication Systems
https://doi.org/10.21603/sibscript-2024-26-4-597-606
Abstract
This article examines French and Russian terminological units that describe the current systems of gestural communication. The author studied scientific articles, dictionaries, non-fiction, and law texts to conduct a definitional and context analysis of lexical units that form a lexical-semantic continuum between the expression of the concept of oral language and the concept of sign language in the corresponding metalanguages. The study revealed linguistic and extralinguistic factors that determined ethical problems associated with the incorrect translation of certain terms from French into Russian. The fundamental distinction between the concepts of language and speech made it possible to systematize all the units identified as part of this terminological field in both Russian and French. The systems were presented as tables that illustrated the boundaries of the concepts. A comparative analysis of the two systems indicated the main morphological and semantic differences in the terms. The research resulted in a system of equivalence between French and Russian terms, i.e., a scientifically based nomenclature that can be used by linguists and translators when working on Russian and French texts in the field of communication of deaf and hard of hearing people.
About the Author
D. S. Zolotukhin
Paris Cité University
France
Competing Interests:
France
Denis S. Zolotukhin
Paris
Competing Interests:
Conflict of interests: The authors declared no potential conflict of interests regarding the research, authorship, and / or publication of this article.
References
1. Galieva D. A., Naurazbaeva L. V. The history of origin and evolution of sign languages. Bulletin of the Ufa Law Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2020, (3): 152–158. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/jqbjzg
2. Zaitseva G. L. Sign language. Dactylology. Moscow: Vlados, 2000, 192. (In Russ.)
3. Komarova A. A. Russian sign language: Main problems of vocabulary study. Uchenye Zapiski Kazanskogo Universiteta. Seriya Gumanitarnye Nauki, 2022, 164(1-2): 116–134. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26907/2541-7738.2022.1-2.116-134
4. Komarova A. A. Deaf community and sign language. Moscow, 2020, 257. (In Russ.)
5. Marr N. Ya. Selected works. Vol. 1. Stages of development of Japhetic theory. Leningrad: SAHMC, 1933, 437. (In Russ.)
6. Pease A. Body language. How to read others’ thoughts by their gestures (fragment). Courier of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL), 2020, (8): 249–260. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/jwtxwo
7. Sacks O. Seeing Voices. Moscow: AST, 2019, 286. (In Russ.)
8. Saussure F. de. General linguistics. Ekaterinburg: Ural University, 1999, 432. (In Russ.)
9. Taraneh R., Valipour A., Kallioma L. A., Gorolatova T. S. Media-educational context of pedagogical and medical approaches to complex rehabilitation of children with violation of hearing in the general system of their social-cultural adaptation. Vestnik Volzhskogo universiteta im. V. N. Tatishcheva, 2017, 2(3): 268–275. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/zjsfdj
10. Brentari D. Sign languages. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2010, 691.
11. Burkova S., Filimonova E., Kimmelman V., Kopylova V., Semushina N. Lexical expression of time in Russian Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 2019, 19(2): 175–203. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2018.0031
12. Davis J. E. American Indian sign language: Documentary linguistic methodologies and technologies. Endangered Languages and New Technologies, ed. Jones M. C. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107279063.015
13. Kagirov I., Ryumin D., Ivanko D., Axyonov A., Karpov A. Russian sign language: History, grammar and sociolinguistic situation in brief. Proceedings of the Language Technologies for All (LT4All), Paris, UNESCO Headquarters, 5–6 Dec 2019. ELRA, 2019, 71–74.
14. Markowicz H. La langue des signes: réalité et fiction. Langages, 1979, (56): 7–12.
15. Papaspyrou C., Meyenn von A., Matthaei M., Herrmann B. Grammatik der deutschen Gebärdensprache aus der Sicht gehörloser Fachleute. Hamburg: Signum, 2008, Bd. 6, 232.
16. Sallandre M. A., Garcia B. Langue des signes française et linguistique: Enjeux actuels. Le Français Moderne. Revue de linguistique Française, 2021, 89(2): 281–292.
17. Sandler W. Sign language: Overview. Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, ed. Brown K. 2nd ed. Oxford: Elsevier, 2006, 328–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00239-X
18. Segui J., Ferrand L. Chapitre premier. Langue, langage, parole. Leçons de parole, sous la direction de Segui J., Ferrand L. Paris: Odile Jacob, 2000, 15–26.
19. Sériot P. Le monde perdu de Nikolaj Marr: Un philosophe du langage du XVIIIe siècle dans la Russie stalinienne. Penser l’histoire des savoirs linguistiques, eds. Archaimbault S., Fournier J.-M., Raby V. Lyon: ENS Éditions, 2014, 601–609. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.enseditions.32365
20. Tournadre N., Hamm M. Une approche typologique de la langue des signes française. A typological approach of French Sign Language. TIPA Travaux interdisciplinaires sur la parole et le langage, 2018, 34. https://doi.org/10.4000/tipa.2568
21. Watt W. C. Sign language: Semiotic approaches. Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, ed. Brown K. 2nd ed. Oxford: Elsevier, 2006, 350. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/01452-8
22. Wurtzburg S., Campbell L. Source North American Indian sign language: Evidence of its existence before European contact. International Journal of American Linguistics, 1995, 61(2): 153–167.
Review
For citations:
Zolotukhin D.S. Language of Signs vs. Sign Language: Equivalence Issues of French and Russian Terms in Metalanguage of Gestural Communication Systems. SibScript. 2024;26(4):597-606. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21603/sibscript-2024-26-4-597-606
Views:
194
Email this article 