Subtractive Numerals in two Village Sign Languages Sibaji Panda & Hasan Dikyuva

Mardin (MarSL),Turkey and Alipur Sign Alipur: Language (APSL), India are languages originated in small- Alipur is a village located near Bangaluru in southern India. It is scale rural communities with high incidence of hereditary well known as a small muslim (Shia) enclave in a predominantly deafness. The sign languages discussed in this poster Hindu-populated area. Urdu/Hindi is spoken in Alipur village. presentation have sociolinguistic and cultural parameters that however, the local language around Alipur is Kannada. It is are radically different from urban sign languages. Research on believed that due to the tradition of endogamous marriage patterns such rural sign languages and their unique setting is very recent genetic deafness has existed for several generations. Currently (see Zeshan & de Vos 2012). Subtractive number systems there are 150 deaf people in the village. The local people believe are attested though infrequent across spoken languages, that deafness has existed for at least 10 generations. APSL has but have never been documented in sign languages before. only recently been discovered and research is only just beginning (Dikyuva & Dilsiz 2011) This unusual finding in the two sign (see Panda 2010, 2012, Dikyuva, Escobedo Delagado, Panda and Zeshan 2012) languages in the domain of numerals considerably extends the known range of typological variation across sign language. Mardin: MarSL evolved in Mardin, a small town in south-eastern Turkey. Genetic deafness in a single extended family with the last name ‘Dilsiz’, which means “Deaf” in Turkish, led to Data and Methodology the emergence of MarSL. MarSL has been used by both Data includes a number naming task for MarSL, a deaf and hearing people for generations. Around 25 bargaining game activity for APSL, and free conversation. years ago family members started moving out of Mardin to look for work across different cities. MarSL is still used ELAN transcription tool was used to transcribe the data when the extended family members get together, mainly and an analysis was done based on the transcription and for communication between deaf and hearing relatives, all findings were also confirmed later with the native users. as the latter do not use . Most of the deaf signers from the young generation have shifted to Turkish Sign Language, Results and examples from the data and MarSL is now highly endangered as it is no longer being learned by children.

APSL Examples The subtractive number sub-system in MarSL is not obligatory but constitutes one pos sible option. Numbers from one to four can appear as subtracted number . Some signers prefer using only one and two as the subtracted numbers. This construction is possible from 26 to 29, from 36 to 39, etc., However, the largest subtracted numeral observed in the APSL data is 10.

(1) FIVE(a) LESS TWO ‘195’ In APSL subtractive numerals are used when the value is near a higher ‘round’ number. This ‘195’ can be expressed as ‘200 minus 5’ using the sign allows for numbers to be expressed much more economically, as using the additive system LESS. The sign ‘2’ here represents ‘200’ often requires a longer sign sequence: for example:

Additive strategy: HUNDRED FIFTY TEN TEN TEN TEN FIVE ‘195’

Subtractive strategy: FIVE LESS TWO ‘195’ (2) TWO LESS FIFTY ‘48’ There is a lexical sign in APSL for ‘50’. In this example the The APSLdata show that the usual order of signs is to start with the numeral that is being sign ‘2’ represents the number ‘2’, not 200 as in example 1. subtracted, followed by the sign LESS, followed by the larger numeral that is being subtracted from. Sometimes, signers topicalise the larger numeral, in which case it appears first _____top FIFTY, TWO LESS ‘48’ (see example 2 for pic)

Flexibly in this way are very rare cross-linguistically. A number of spoken languages have (3) TWO LESS THREE ‘28’ subtractive single-digit numerals (e.g. Hurford 1975; Greenberg 1978). For instance, in In example 3, the sign ‘2’ represents the number ‘2’; howev- Athapascan languages, ‘9’ is regularly expressed as ‘(10) minus 1’ (Hymes 1955). However, er, the sign ‘3’ represents the number ‘30’. the subtractive sub-system is productive in Alipur Sign Language, and that makes is highly unusual. The choice of sign order seems to depend on the context of the utterance, but this MarSL Examples has not been investigated in detail.

References:

As seen in the exam- Dikyuva, H., Escobedo Delgado, E., Panda, S. and Zeshan, U. (2012) Working with communities – Deaf classrooms and linguistic heritage. In: Ze- shan, U. & De Vos, C. (eds.) Village Sign Languages – Linguistic and anthropological insights. Sign Language Typology Series No. 4. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton & Ni- ples, a similar strat- jmegen: Ishara Press. egy is used in MarSL Dikyuva, Hasan & Hasret Dilsiz (2011) Endangered Languages Documentation Programme: in Turkey. Paper presented at SIGN5 conference, for subtracted num- Gazi University, Ankara, 21-23 October 2011 (4) TWENTY TWO-LESS ‘18’ bers from one to four Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978. Generalizations about numeral systems. In: Joseph H.Greenberg (ed.): Universals of Human Language, Volume 3. Stanford, CA: Stanford to express the near- UP, pp 249–297. est four numbers from Hurford, James R. (1975) The Linguistic Theory of Numerals. London: Cambridge University Press. a ‘round’ number. eg. 36,37,38,39 and so Hymes, Virginia Dosch. (1955) Athapascan numeral systems. International Journal of American Linguistics 21(1): 6-45. Panda, S (2012) Alipur Sign Language- A sociolinguistic and cultural profile In: Zeshan, U. & De Vos, C. (eds.) Village Sign Languages – Linguistic and anthropological forth. insights. Sign Language Typology Series No. 4. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton & Nijmegen: Ishara Press.

Panda S (2010) The number system in Alipur Village Sign Language, Presentation at Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR 10), Purdue University, United States of America.

Panda, S (2012) Alipur Sign Language- A sociolinguistic and cultural profile In: Zeshan, U. & De Vos, C. (eds.) Village Sign Languages – Linguistic and anthropological (5) TWENTY ONE-LESS ‘19’ insights. Sign Language Typology Series No. 4. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton & Nijmegen: Ishara Press.

Acknowledgements: We express our sincere thanks to the organisations listed to the left as well as to the Direc- tor of iSLanDS Institute at the University of Central Lancashire for the constant financial and academic support. In addition, we would like to thank the consultants who have worked with us for several years and provided valuable support to make this research successful. Without their committed sup- port we would not have been able to complete this piece of research.