Variation in SASL

How signs are constructed

For the application of these parameters, see the explanation of how we annotated place-name signs in ELAN, and the description of our Annotation shorthand.

In signed languages, parameters are elements that are used to construct signs. These parameters form the foundational elements of sign linguistics and are essential for distinguishing meanings in South African Sign Language (SASL). Parameters give signs meaning by providing the structural distinctions necessary for clarity, ensuring that each sign conveys a precise and intended message. Parameters also help to organise signs into systems, where signs can be compared based on similarities or differences according to their unique parameter makeup. The main parameters include handedness, contact, handshape, movement, palm orientation, location, and non-manual features. Understanding these parameters helps in analysing and describing signs systematically.

Handedness refers to the use of one hand (unimanual) or both hands (bimanual) in producing a sign. In signed languages, signs can be either one-handed or two-handed. Handedness is also linked to hand dominance—most signers use their dominant hand as the active hand in one-handed signs or as the leading hand in two-handed signs (Battison 1978). The dominant hand performs the primary movements, while the non-dominant hand may act as a support or remain stationary. There are different types of bimanual signs. In symmetrical signs, both hands move in the same way. With asymmetrical signs where the dominant hand moves while the non-dominant hand acts as a base or support. Handedness also affects signer perspective, influencing how signs are perceived by the audience, emphasizing the importance of consistent use (Battison 1978). This just means that it is important to keep one hand dominant, so that the intended meaning is conveyed properly.

Contact refers to whether the hands touch each other or parts of the body during the production of a sign. Such contact serves to distinguish signs that might otherwise look similar (Brentari 1998). Contact is also significant in compound signs (where two or more signs are combined), where it can indicate a shift in meaning or function (Brentari 1998). For the purposes of the project, we narrowed the meaning of “contact” to touch between the dominant and non-dominant hand during the production of a place-name sign.

Handshape refers to the specific configuration or form of the hand when producing a sign, involving the positions of the five fingers and knuckles. In other words, how the fingers and palm look and bend during a sign. Signed languages have a set of distinctive handshapes. Handshape is crucial for distinguishing signs that share other parameters (Stokoe 1960). For example, the difference between an open hand and a closed fist can signify distinct words (Penn 1992). This shows us that the choice of handshape is both phonological (structural) and morphological (meaningful). Signed languages have a defined set of handshapes – distinct forms that change meaning when altered. The most basic example of handshape is the SASL alphabet, a set of handshapes, each representing a letter of the English alphabet, which is used in fingerspelling. In our dataset, the history of SASL is evident in the occurrence of other alphabet handshapes, such as ‘K’ and ‘H’ from Irish Sign Language or old ‘D’ and old ‘P’ from previous alphabet forms. Handshapes can also resemble numbers or common objects.

Movement describes the direction, speed, and way the hands move during a sign. This parameter is used to indicate grammatical aspects like plurality, to distinguish between verbs and nouns, or to indicate certain characteristics (Brentari 1998, Penn 1992). There are different types of movement: Directional movement, usually with the whole hand, as well as internal or external movement within the hand such as wiggling the finger. Repetition is linguistically significant if movement is repeated within a specific sign, or if the movement is a singular motion. For the purposes of our project, repetition is indicated as a separate category in the annotation shorthand.

Palm orientation refers to the direction the palm faces during a sign—up, down, inward, or outward. It is essential for distinguishing signs that might otherwise appear similar. Incorrect palm orientation can change the meaning of a sign entirely (Battison 1978). For example, in SASL, the same handshape with different palm orientations can represent different words or grammatical functions.

Location involves the placement of a sign relative to the body, such as the face, torso, or neutral space in front of the signer (signing space). Location can convey grammatical information, such as subject or object markers in some signed languages (Liddell 2003). The spatial placement of signs can distinguish between words; for instance, signs made on the face might relate to emotions or senses, while those near the chest could refer to abstract concepts. Therefore, location is more closely analysed with the movement of the sign to give meaning to the sign. Location can also be linked to contact if the hand contacts the body, but for our research purposes this type of contact was disregarded.

In signed languages, nonmanual features are components other than hand movements. They include facial expressions, head tilts, eye gaze, mouth movements, and body posture (Sandler & Lillo-Martin 2006). Non-manual features serve various linguistic functions, such as affective or discourse-related meanings, for example, body shifts indicating role shifts in storytelling. These non-manual expressions can function similarly to intonation and stress in spoken languages, thereby shaping the meaning and clarity of signed communication (Pfau & Quer 2010). As place-name signs generally do not require affective expression, we focussed on mouthing.

Mouthing refers to the movements of the lips that accompany signs. It can involve silent articulation of corresponding spoken words or other mouth gestures that add meaning or clarity. Mouthing serves to make signs clearer, add emphasis, or convey additional information (Boyes Braem 2001). Mouthing is a significant feature in signed languages influenced by contact with spoken languages (Boyes Braem 2001) – the particular word or letter mouthed can reveal the spoken language from which a specific sign was derived or indicate the spoken language the signer was exposed to.

These parameters work together to form the complete linguistic system of SASL, each contributing to the meaning and clarity of communication. Each parameter has a unique role in conveying meaning, distinguishing signs, and enhancing the clarity of communication. The parameters are fundamental for the structure and comprehension of SASL. Understanding these parameters also highlights the complexity and richness of SASL as a fully-fledged natural language.

References

Variation in SASL

South African Sign Language (SASL) is not formally standardised. This means there is no one specific way of using the language that is considered “correct” and as the norm against which the validity or understandability of other forms are measured. Instead, a consensus approach is followed. This means that if a sign is deemed understandable by some/most people who use a signed language from within the same context, it is considered a “valid” sign.

This variation has been shaped by various foreign sign languages, particularly through historical developments in Deaf education. Notably, influences from Irish Sign Language, British Sign Language, American Sign Language, and the Paget Gorman Sign System have contributed to the evolution of SASL’s lexicon, manual alphabet, and handshapes.

Origins of variation

Influence of Irish Sign Language (ISL)

In 1863, Irish nuns initiated training programs for the Deaf in South Africa, introducing ISL, which itself was influenced by French Sign Language. This early introduction played a significant role in shaping the foundational aspects of SASL (De La Bat School for the Deaf 2025).

Influence of British Sign Language (BSL)

A study by Van Niekerk (2020) analysed signs from 20 South African schools for the Deaf, comparing them with signs from six other sign languages and PGSS. The study found that 15.9% of SASL signs showed similarities to BSL, indicating a substantial lexical influence.

Influence of American Sign Language (ASL)

The same study by Van Niekerk (2020) revealed that 12.6% of SASL signs were similar to those in ASL. This reflects the impact of ASL on the development of SASL’s lexicon and handshapes.

Influence of the Paget Gorman Sign System (PGSS)

PGSS, a manually coded form of English, has also influenced SASL. Van Niekerk’s study identified that 65.4% of SASL sign types were influenced to some degree by foreign sign languages or PGSS, highlighting the system’s role in shaping SASL’s structure (Van Niekerk 2020).

Manual Alphabet and Handshapes

Fingerspelling in SASL utilises a one-handed manual alphabet, a characteristic it shares with BSL and ASL. This system is employed to spell out words, names, and technical terms, facilitating borrowing from spoken languages. The incorporation of similar handshapes and movements from these foreign sign languages has enriched SASL’s expressive capacity (Wikipedia 2025). SASL has undergone significant evolution in its fingerspelling system. Historically, various manual alphabets were employed, influenced by the diverse educational backgrounds and linguistic origins of Deaf communities.

In the early days, Irish nuns-initiated training programs in sign language around 1863, introducing Irish Sign Language (ISL), which utilised a two-handed alphabet. This was followed by the establishment of institutions like the Grimley Institute for the Deaf and Dumb in 1874 and the De La Bat School for the Deaf in 1881, both of which contributed to the dissemination of the two-handed alphabet (De La Bat School 2025).

The transition from a two-handed to a one-handed fingerspelling system in SASL was influenced by the need for standardisation and efficiency. The one-handed alphabet allows for faster and more fluid communication, aligning with international practices and facilitating interaction with Deaf communities worldwide. However, specific details regarding the exact timeline and process of this transition in South Africa are not well-documented in the available literature. The evolution likely occurred gradually, influenced by educational reforms and the efforts of organizations advocating for the Deaf community (De La Bat School 2025).

In contemporary South Africa, the one-handed manual alphabet is predominantly used in SASL. This system enhances borrowing words from spoken languages and spelling names of people, places, and objects. While fingerspelling is not a substitute for existing signs due to its longer execution time and perceptual challenges, it serves as a practical tool for referring to the written word. Some frequently fingerspelled words have evolved into signs, following linguistic transformation processes such as alphanumeric incorporation and abbreviation (Wikipedia 2025). The adoption of the one-handed alphabet reflects the dynamic nature of SASL and its responsiveness to the communication needs of the Deaf community.

Standardisation

The push for standardisation and recognition gained momentum in the early 21st century. In 2009, the South African Department of Basic Education introduced SASL as a subject in select schools, and by 2015, the Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) for SASL as a home language was implemented (Department of Basic Education 2015). This development aimed to provide Deaf learners with equal access to education and improve literacy rates within the Deaf community. Simultaneously, universities and training institutions expanded programs for SASL interpreter training, addressing the critical shortage of qualified interpreters in legal, medical, and educational sectors. After years of advocacy, on 19 July 2023, SASL was officially recognised as South Africa’s 12th official language (not yet promulgated as of March 2025), marking a historic milestone in Deaf rights and linguistic inclusivity. This recognition has paved the way for further policy development, including the integration of SASL into government services, broadcasting, and accessibility laws.

The issue of formal standardisation remains a controversial issue. On the one hand, the argument is that standardisation undermines the variation that naturally occurs in all languages. There is also the perception that standardisation elevates one form of the language over the other (World Federation of the Deaf 2026). On the other hand, having a standard form of a language does not negate the validity of other forms. Instead, it facilitates national communication, public administration, access to services, and language maintenance and preservation. In addition to these pragmatic advantages, however, standardisation is inherently ideological. This could result in value judgements about those who can and cannot master the standard forms, and gatekeeping of services and public participation (for a detailed discussion, see the 2021 special issue of the Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, Volume 42, Issue 2 (Taylor & Francis Online 2025)). It is worth considering the requirements and duties related to language from a governance perspective, and the rights and responsibilities of linguistic communities to preserve, promote and actively use variations.

References & selected reading

Sociolinguistic variables

Variation

Within the same language, there exist variation, i.e., fixed ways of using the language that are distinguishable from other uses. This variation can be in the form of pronunciation (phonetic, i.e., the sounds), vocabulary (words), grammar (correctness in parts of speech), register (formality), and even topics. Variations are formed by subgroups or communities that are marked by certain characteristics. When these characteristics influence language use, they are called sociolinguistic variables. ‘Socio’’ to refer to a certain social category, and “linguistic” to refer to language. Sociolinguistic variables are therefore the factors that influence what form a specific variant (distinct form) might take and who will use it.

Sociolinguistic variables and variation in SASL

There are several factors that influence language use. For this dataset, we specifically look at main place, i.e., where participants spend most of their time and research site (geographic variation), age (generational variation), date of collection (diachronic variation), and home language (language contract). While schoolisation (i.e., the acquisition method and local variant) can be definitive for some users, our current research design did not include the required background research to produce definitive conclusions.

Sociolinguistic variable: Geography

The community in which a language is used influence the form a language takes. For example, British English, American English, Australian English and South African English are all versions of English, clearly distinct from each other in terms of grammar, spelling and pronunciation. On a local level, we could compare the difference between the version of Xhosa used by speakers in the Eastern Cape Province, where it is a first language for many people; and that in the Free State Province, where fewer people use it as a first language. The latter group may have a smaller vocabulary because there are fewer opportunities to practice the language. The way this group uses grammar and pronunciation may be influenced by other languages they use. Their level of adherence to traditional Xhosa culture versus other norms can shape the frame of reference that affect their language use. These hypothetical Xhosa speakers will therefore develop a form of the language that they deem acceptable and understandable. In other words, they will have established a certain convention. If this convention continues for a notable period and is used by a notable number of people, it becomes a variant of the language. Even when people move away from the place where they learned the habit of using the language in a specific way, they might still retain certain qualities – accent is an obvious example. Localised distribution of preferred sign use leads to geographic variation.

GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION in SASL

Where the data was collected (research site) – It is highly likely that members from the local Deaf community will share a sign that might differ from the preferred sign for the same entity that other communities use.
Main location – Given that place-name signs are conceivably localised, the likelihood is that participants would know the signs used in the location where they had spent most of their lives. Even if they moved and replaced the sign, they would still be able to indicate the sign they acquired earlier.

Sociolinguistic variable: Age

With each generation, new experiences, influences, and social factors become relevant and influential. Inevitably this influences language use. Change in the use of vocabulary indicates what issues are of importance and how they are framed. Modes of expression reflect (subtle) shifts in how power relationships are viewed. Trends come and go, but some become fossilised. Think for example of slang that becomes obsolete or incorporated, acceptable levels of formality within certain contexts (registers), or when emojis became widely accepted as linguistic expressions. The way in which individuals use language indicates what social norms they embrace or reject, which can usually be linked to a specific generation. Documenting the age of the sign user can provide information on generational and diachronic variation.

GENERATIONAL VARIATION in SASL

From whom data was collected (age group) - Different generations are exposed to different frameworks, experiences, and challenges. Signing styles also move in and out of vogue.

DIACHRONIC VARIATION in SASL

When the data was collected - Our study is not longitudinal research. However, the data can serve as insight on how changes in SASL happens over time, beyond the demands of different generations. In other words, what signs are/were actually used within a specific period; and what are the factors influencing that shift somewhat permanently?

Sociolinguistic variable: Language contact

Inevitably, the other languages that individuals are exposed to influence the way they use their native or preferred language. These might be subtle – exchanging certain words from the original language to the additional language, using different inflections or pronunciations for empathetic affect; or more dramatic, structural changes. These would include changing grammar or other syntactical features, or having difficulty holding a conversation in the original language with someone who does not understand the additional language. This is studied as language contact.

LANGUAGE CONTACT in SASL

The language(s) used by those around signers affects language use in various ways, from a preference for certain types of variation (such as initialisation instead of descriptive signs) or cultural-linguistic idiomatic expressions that are translated into SASL. Contact can refer to exposure to other signed languages, for example American Sign Language, but for this dataset we focussed on the spoken language used around the home of the participants.

Selected reading

Variation in SASL place names

Variants (i.e., different versions) of place names in South African Sign Language (SASL) are informed by two factors: 1) The naming tradition or practice; and 2) the nature, or level, of variation.

Naming practice

Lombaard (2020) discusses two different naming traditions, or ways of creating place-name signs in South African Sign Language (SASL). The first is a descriptive, pictorial depiction of a specific characteristic of a place or its name. An example is the descriptive sign for Gauteng (variant: Gauteng 03) that mimics the tall Telkom Joburg Tower (also known as the Hillbrow Tower). Within this naming practice, semantic influence from spoken languages can occur (i.e., language contact), whereby spoken place names are translated literally (Siyavoshi & Sibanda 2024). Lombaard (2020) labels these loan or translocated signs. For example, the colloquial name of Bloemfontein is 'City of Roses'. Certain variants (such as Bloemfontein 03 and Bloemfontein 13) include the sign for ROSE. Alternatively, the spoken place name can be adapted by incorporating the SASL alphabet. For instance, variant Johannesburg 01 is simply the handshape 'J'. The first letter, i.e., initial, of the spoken place name (or characteristic of it) is incorporated into the sign. Siyavoshi and Sibanda (2024) classify this phenomenon as phonological influence from spoken languages (i.e., language contact). The two practices can also be combined. For example, two variants for Limpopo (Limpopo 01 and Limpopo 02) have both hands in the handshape L, moving in a side-to-side forwards motion that mimics the flow of a river.

From this we can determine three categories of place-name signs:

Descriptive place-name signs. Either based on some feature of a place or could be a loan sign.
Initialised place-name signs. Incorporates the spoken place name.
Initialised descriptive place-name signs. A combination of both types of signs.

Levels of variation

Siyavoshi and Sibanda (2024: 952-954) identify three levels of variation in SASL place-name signs:

Phonological variation. Variants of the sign differ in terms of parameters (phonological features). For example, two variants for the Mpumalanga province (North West 01 and North West 02) are both initialised signs with the handshape 'N’ followed by 'W'. The first has no movement, while the second includes a movement to the side. The phonological difference is therefore in terms of the parameter of movement.
Morphological variation. An additional sign is added. The variant East London 02 is an initialised sign with the handshape E followed by L, with movement to the side. East London 12 is an initialised two-handed sign that commences with the dominant hand in the handshape E, followed by L placed into the palm of the non-dominant hand. The latter half of the sign is similar to the sign for LOCATION, and thereby indicates that this is a place-name sign. This addition makes it a morphological variation from East London 02.
Lexical variation. Signs are clearly distinct with underlying motivations. For instance, one variant of Bethlehem (Bethlehem 03) is a descriptive sign with the handshape 'O’ followed by 'A', most likely in reference to the previous number plates for the town. Another variant (Bethlehem 01) mimics the sign for Jesus, who was born in the biblical Bethlehem.