Descriptive Grammar, Polish Sign Language - level 1

obligatory courses

Students should have Polish Sign Language sklils at the level B2 (minimum) and basic linguistic terminology.

Blended learning

The programme of the course comprises theoretical and practical presentation of basic characteristics of a modern grammatical system of Polish Sign Language with respect to phonology, morphology, word formation and syntax. The first part of the course will cover selected aspects of semiotics, cultural anthropology, sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics. Furthermore, derivational and inflectional morphology, classifier specificity and visual-spatial syntax will be discussed.

The course on descriptive grammar of Polish Sign Language as a C language comprises a few thematic modules:

Module A: Introduction to sign linguistics

Module B: Structure of a sign and morphological processes

Module C: Conecting signs into sentences - syntax

Summary module

Module A:

1. Demythologisation of sign language

2. Cultural aspects of the Deaf community

3. Social aspects of Polish Sign Language - sociolinguistic perspective

4. Psycholinguistic research on ontogenetic language acquisition

5. Internal parameters of a sign - soundless phonology

6. Lexicon - the structure of Polish Sign Language vocabulary

Module B:

1. Morphemes in signed and spoken languages

2. Sequential vs. simultaneous grammar

3. Templatic derivational morphology of PJM

4. Concatenative derivational morphology of PJM

5. Sign compounds

6. Inflectional morphology and sign space

7. Grammatical role of non-manual signal in morphology

8. Calssifiers and classifier predicates

9. Processes of lexicalisation: classifier constructions and loan signs

10. The nature of processes of grammaticalisation in sign and spoken languages

Module C:

1. Lexcial categories (word classes) in PJM

2. Types of simple interrogative and imperative sentences in PJM

3. Thematisation (topicalisation) - processes of identifying the subject

4. Use of negation in signed sentences

5. Sentence constructions with two classifier predicates

6. Structure of compound sentences in PJM - phenomenon of subordination

7. Role-shifting and direct speech in signed narrative

8. Grammatical role of non-manual signals in syntax

9. Predicative-argumentative structures of PJM

10. Sign order (SVO) in a signed sentence and the problem of language interference

11. Hierarchical structure of a signed sentence

Summary module:

1. From lexicon to grammar - the effects of modality in signed and spoken languages

2. What we know and what we still do not know about sign languages

Recommended reading:

Baker, A., Bogaerde van den B., Pfau, R., Schermer, T. (2016). The linguistics of sign languages. An introduction. Jofn Benjamins Publishing Company.

Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., Woll B. (2012), red. Sign language: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton (wybrane rozdziały).

Rutkowski, P., Kuder, A., Filipczak, J. Mostowski, P. (2015), Analiza suprasegmentalnych wykładników negacji w polskim języku migowym (PJM) jako przykład wykorzystania metod korpusowych w badaniach nad komunikacją wizualno-przestrzenną. W: Metodologie językoznawstwa. Od dialektologii do dialektyki (Łódzkie Studia z Językoznawstwa Angielskiego i Ogólnego / Łódź Studies in English and General Linguistics: 4), red. P. Stalmaszczyk, Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.

Sandler, W. , Lillo-Martin, D. (2006). Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tomaszewski, P. (2003). Przyswajanie języka migowego przez dziecko głuche rodziców głuchych. Przegląd Psychologiczny, 46(1), 101-128.

Tomaszewski, P. (2004). Polski język migowy – mity i fakty. Poradnik Językowy, 6, 59-72.

Tomaszewski, P. Rosik, P. (2007). Sygnały niemanualne a zdania pojedyncze w polskim języku migowym: gramatyka twarzy. Poradnik Językowy, 1, 33-49.

Tomaszewski, P. Rosik, P. (2007). Sygnały niemanualne a zdania złożone w polskim języku migowym: gramatyka twarzy. Poradnik Językowy, 2, 64-80.

Tomaszewski, P. (2005). O niektórych elementach morfologii polskiego języka migowego: złożenia (cz. 1). Poradnik Językowy, 2, 59-75.

P. Tomaszewski (2005). O niektórych elementach morfologii polskiego języka migowego: zapożyczenia (cz. 2). Poradnik Językowy, 3, 44-62.

Tomaszewski, P. (2006). Przyswajanie języka migowego przez dzieci głuche w różnych warunkach stymulacji językowej. W: T. Gałkowski, E. Pisula (red.), Psychologia rehabilitacyjna. Wybrane zagadnienia. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Psychologii PAN.

Tomaszewski, P. (2010). Fonologia wizualna polskiego języka migowego. Warszawa: MATRIX.

Tomaszewski, P.. Farris, M. (2010). Not by the hands alone: Function of non-manual features in Polish Sign Language. W: B. Bokus (ed.), Studies in the psychology of language and communication. Warsaw: Matrix.

Tomaszewski, P. (2011). Lingwistyczny opis struktury polskiego języka migowego. W: Język jako przedmiot badań psycholingwistycznych. Psycholingwistyka i neurolingwistyka, red. I. Kurcz, H. Okuniewska, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo SWPS Academica.

Tomaszewski, P., Piekot, T. (2015). Język migowy w perspektywie socjolingwistycznej. Socjolingwistyka, 29, 63-87.

Tomaszewski, P. Wieczorek, R. (2016). Kropla drąży skałę: Ku depatologizacji głuchoty. W: H. Wrona Polańska, E. Pisula, K. Bargiel-Matusiewicz (red.), Zdrowie i choroba w kontekście funkcjonowania społecznego i zawodowego. Wyd. Polskie Towarzystwo Psychologiczne.

Valli C., Lucas C., Mulrooney K., Villanueva M. (2011). Linguistics of American Sign Language: An Introduction. Washington: Gallaudet University Press.

Further reading:

Brentari, D. (2010). red. Sign Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fenlon, J., Cormier, K. I., Brentari, B. (2018). The phonology of sign languages. W: A. Bosch (red.), Routledge Handbook of Phonological Theory. NY: Routledge.

Johnson, T., Schembri A. (2007). Australian Sign Language. An introduction to sign language linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rutkowski, P., Łozińska. S. (2011). O niedookreśloności semantycznej migowych predykatów klasyfikatorowych. W: M. Bańko, D. Kopcińska (red.), Różne formy, różne treści. Warszawa: Wydział Polonistyki Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.

Rutkowski, P., Łozińska, S. (2014). red. Lingwistyka przestrzeni i ruchu. Komunikacja migowa a metody korpusowe. Warszawa: Wydział Polonistyki Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.

Tomaszewski, P. (2015). Constraints on negative prefixation in PJM. Plos One, 10(11): e0143574. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0143574.

Tomaszewski, P., Eźlakowski, W. (2021). Negative Affixation in Polish Sign Language, Sign Language Studies, 21(3), 290-332.

On finishing the course, the student:

KNOWLEDGE

- is familiar with the structure of language as a system, has linguistic knowledge about sign language, and understands well its specificity

- knows the elementary concepts of sign language grammar and the basics of grammatical terminology regarding visual-spatial language

- has grounded general knowledge of linguistics

- has structured knowledge of descriptive grammar of sign language

SKILLS

- can search for, analyse and evaluate authentic signed texts that appear on the Internet, in the corpus dictionary of Polish Sign Language, and develop his/her professional skills in the area of applied linguistics

- can use his/her basic knowledge to explain grammatical correctness

- can conduct a simple syntactic analysis of a signed sentence, basing on the acquired knowledge

SOCIAL COMPETENCIES

- is aware that the Deaf constitute a linguistic minority

- presents critical attitude towards incorrect grammatical constructions

- is ready to interaction and work in group, assuming different roles and adhering to adequate rules of academic and professional ethics.

Classes

Continuous assessment is based on:

- attendance (two unexcused absences accepted)

- active participation in classes

- regular preparation of home assignments

- written and signed assessments

All assignments are graded according to the following criteria:

0-59% = failed, (2.0)

60-67% = satisfactory (3.0)

68-75% = satisfactory plus (3.5)

76-83% = good (4.0)

84-91% = good plus (4.5)

92-98% = very good (5.0)

99-100% = very good! (5.0!)

Exam

The exam is assessed on the basis of students' command of the material in theory and practive.

The exam is graded according to the following criteria:

0-59% = failed (2.0)

60-67% = satisfactory (3.0)

68-75% = satisfactory plus (3.5)

76-83% = good (4.0)

84-91% = good plus (4.5)

92-98% = very good (5.0)

99-100% = very good! (5.0!)

A re-take exam is graded according to the same criteria.

Students are required to attend all the classes. The allowed number of unexcused absences is 2 per 30 contact hours. When the number of allowed absences is exceeded, the student will be given additional tasks aimed at making up for the material missed from the classes by that student. If the number of absences exceeds 50% or more, it will result in a negative grade from the course.

If classroom learning is impossible, classes will be conducted with the help of distance communication tools, most probably Zoom, Google Meet and others recommended by the University.