Typology of Signed Languages: Differentiation Through Kinship Terminology Erin Wilkinson
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of New Mexico University of New Mexico UNM Digital Repository Linguistics ETDs Electronic Theses and Dissertations 7-1-2009 Typology of Signed Languages: Differentiation through Kinship Terminology Erin Wilkinson Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/ling_etds Recommended Citation Wilkinson, Erin. "Typology of Signed Languages: Differentiation through Kinship Terminology." (2009). https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/ling_etds/40 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Electronic Theses and Dissertations at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Linguistics ETDs by an authorized administrator of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TYPOLOGY OF SIGNED LANGUAGES: DIFFERENTIATION THROUGH KINSHIP TERMINOLOGY BY ERIN LAINE WILKINSON B.A., Language Studies, Wellesley College, 1999 M.A., Linguistics, Gallaudet University, 2001 DISSERTATION Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Linguistics The University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico August, 2009 ©2009, Erin Laine Wilkinson ALL RIGHTS RESERVED iii DEDICATION To my mother iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many thanks to Barbara Pennacchi for kick starting me on my dissertation by giving me a room at her house, cooking me dinner, and making Italian coffee in Rome during November 2007. Your endless support, patience, and thoughtful discussions are gratefully taken into my heart, and I truly appreciate what you have done for me. I heartily acknowledge Dr. William Croft, my advisor, for continuing to encourage me through the long number of months writing and rewriting these chapters. His expertise in language typology inspired me to explore the new frontier of signed language typology. His guidance and professional style will remain with me as I continue my career. Deepest thanks go to Dr. Elena Pizzuto for her insights into signed languages were invaluable to me and for her unflailing encouragement over these years as we have collaborated on various projects. My gratitude goes to Dr. Sherman Wilcox for my transformation from a student to a colleague by his excellent mentorship and confidence in me. I also thank Dr. Larry Gorbet for his influence in my professional development in preparation for this study through his training and assistance. Gratitude is extended to the National Science Foundation, Visual Language and Visual Learning (VL2) for the experience to pursue this research. This dissertation study was partially supported by Visual Language and Visual Learning (VL2) Pre-doctoral Center Fellowship, funding from NSF grant number SBE-0541953. Profound thanks to Jill Morford, my supervisor, professor, and mentor for her conviction in my potential to become a signed language linguist. v This large scale study could not have been accomplished without all international collaborators, colleagues, and friends I have met over the years in and from various parts of the world. For not only simply referring me to dictionaries’ signed-written translations, they also contributed to bettering my understanding and clarity about their respective signed languages by taking the time to explain the history of their signed languages. I thank you all my collaborators for their support, thought-provoking discussions, and friendship. Karen Alkoby, Samuel Atcherson, Parween Azimi, Louise de Beuzeville, Arkady Belozovsky, Alisha Bronk, Petra Eccarius Brylow, Kangsuk Byun, Martina Carlson, Richard Cokart, Christian Cuxac, Paul Dudis, Juan Carlos Duretta, Abdul Ghaffar, Lucyna Dlugolecka, Melissa Draganac-Hawk, Thierry Haesenne, Julia Hochegang, Sung- Eun Hong, Deniz Ilkbasaran, Clifton Langdon-Grigg, Lorraine Leeson, Daniele Le Rose, Luigi Le Rose, Sam Luato, Simon Kollien, Emily Matabane, Nicolas Médin, Janne Boye Nimelä, Peter Nimelä, Berna Marthinussen, Susan Metheny, Nicholaus Mpingwa, Karen Naughton, Barbara O’Dea, Dan Parvaz, Marylin Plummer, Justin Powers, Patricia Raswant, Ido Roll, Kyle Rosenberg, Marie-Anne Sallandre, Jesse Saunders, Adam Schembri, Brenda Schertz, Barbara Shaffer, Joshua Staley, Logan Sutton, Paolo Rossini, Bonnie Rudy, Dan Veit, Agnes Villwock, Silas Wagner, Yumi Watanabe, and Phyllis Wilcox. To my editors, Diana Wilkinson and Jeanne Caldwell, though a small word of thanks is not enough for many months of weekend work, I do thank you from the bottom of my heart. vi My deepest gratitude goes to my family and friends who supported me throughout my graduate studies. It sure was a long ride! vii TYPOLOGY OF SIGNED LANGUAGES: DIFFERENTIATION THROUGH KINSHIP TERMINOLOGY BY ERIN LAINE WILKINSON ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Linguistics The University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico August, 2009 TYPOLOGY OF SIGNED LANGUAGES: DIFFERENTIATION THROUGH KINSHIP TERMINOLOGY by Erin Laine Wilkinson B.A., Language Studies, Wellesley College, 1999 M.A., Linguistics, Gallaudet University, 2001 Ph.D., Linguistics, University of New Mexico, 2009 ABSTRACT Nearly all such studies have sought to understand the linguistic constraints of spoken languages, while largely neglecting signed languages. Despite the fact that spoken languages can be classified into types, signed languages are generally assumed to be clustered all together in one type which the current study challenges. Exploring the potential for a varied typology among signed languages requires identifying patterns across a sampling of geographically distinct and historically unrelated signed languages to formulate linguistic generalizations. To that end this study adopts Greenberg’s 1966 analysis of Universals of Kinship Terminology, it examines the linguistic patterns that emerge from a comparison of kinship terminology in 40 signed languages, specifying what patterns can be seen in visual-gestural languages. Findings of this study revealed that form-function mappings of specific semantic domains are constructed by different strategies including: iconicity motivated by universal human and cultural-specific traits, arbitrary elements, and linguistic economy ix (semantic derivation). Patterns reveal that kin terms are motivated yet contain degrees of arbitrariness, suggesting a continuum of interaction of arbitrariness and iconicity. While iconicity is undeniably pervasive in signed languages, salient properties manifested in signed kinship terminology are not universal, but instead reflect the cultural and cognitive perception experienced by deaf people within their linguistic communities. As a result iconic properties framed by language-specific and cultural specific mappings lend to variations in signs, describing the trend that signed forms’ phonological properties are not simply phonemic representations, but instead are phonological properties that inherently signify semantic properties. In turn, iconicity emerges as an undeniable and powerful tool of schematization used to form signs in a visual-spatial modality. Data showed some kin terms were motivated by patterns of specific semantic- phonological interdependency. These patterns identified occurrences of semantic derivation and semantic extension within language-specific sets of kin terms. Signed kin terms are formed by combinations of initialization, fingerspelling/character writing constructions, and iconic and arbitrary descriptions. However, organization of kin terms by linguistic processes may not parallel what Greenberg found in his study of spoken languages. The nature of modality clearly manifests in different ways of organizing signed languages and spoken languages; illustrated by how markedness manifests differently. The extent of linguistic phenomenon seen in the domain of kinship terminology underscores the importance of exploring semantics through studies of phonology, morphology, and grammar in signed languages. Typological analyses of signed languages contribute significantly to understanding what linguistic traits appear consistently through x all languages, both spoken and signed, by revealing more about the effects of the modality-independent and modality-dependent behaviors of languages in defining language universals. xi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................... XVIII LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................... XXV CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 1 Background ........................................................................................................... 6 Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................... 9 Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................... 11 Significance of the Problem ................................................................................ 12 Nature of the Study ............................................................................................. 12 Research Questions ............................................................................................. 14 Hypotheses .......................................................................................................... 15 Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................