genetic classification of sl

[james macfarlane]

On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Ulrike Zeshan wrote:

> Dear list,
>
> I am looking for information about the genetic classification of sign
> languages: Which sign languages are known to be genetically related? Are
> there family tree models that have been worked out (French sl family,
> Japanese sl family...)? What criteria do people use to determine whether
> two sign language are genetically related? How could you go about
> determining the genetic classification of a so-far undescribed or
> underdescribed sign language? What kind of data would you need to look at
> to determine whether it is related to other sign languages?

Hi Ulrike,

Regarding the SL families.   To the best of my knowledge there is no
record of which SLs are related available in one document.  Here are some
of the sources you can check, though.

The Ethnologue of languages available on the web. (I don't know how
reliable this is; last time I checked they had LSQ and a seperate language
(Canadian Sign Language) listed.  I've checked around with some Canadian
Deaf and there is no Canadian Sign Language that is distinct from ASL)

Several works by James Woodward. (check the International sign langauge
bibliography on the web)

As you probably know, Dixon has a big problem with the family tree models
because it cannot explain every type of relationship between languages.
Also, he argues that comparisons of core vocabuliaries is a helpful first
step, but should never be taken as proof of genetic relationships.

The criteria that Woodward uses to determine relatedness is by counting
the number of cognates between two signed languages that are believed to
be related.  Woodward developed a modified Swadesh list that can be
applied to sign languages.  He then uses the following table to determine
degree of relatedness.

81%  to  100%   = dialects of the same language
36%  to   81%   = belong to the same language family
0    to   36%   = distinct langauges that belong to separate families

Woodward notes that there is a problem with false cognates (due to
iconicity, chance, or other causes)  I think the iconicity problem is a
big one.  For example,  Woodward's list includes signs such as FIRE, SNOW,
RAIN, RED, FISH, etc.

He does attempt to control for these false cognates, though.

Specific languages that Woodward has treated include:

ASL and Modern Standard Thai Sign Language (MSTSL) and Oriiginal Chiangmai
Sign Language (OCMSL) and Original Bangkok Sign Language (OBSL).

The relationship of sign language varieties in India, Pakistan, and Nepal.

Sign Language varieties in Costa Rica with ASL

Another article that you might check out is Susan Fischer's (1996)
argument that ASL resulted from a creolization process.  Here she compares
the number systems and comes to some conlusions about relatedness.

Hope this helps..

James MacFarlane
University of New Mexico