Semantic fields in sign languages – A comparative typological study Keiko Sagara and Ulrike Zeshan This volume is the result of a large cross-linguistic study on semantic fields in sign languages. When the study was designed, three main semantic fields were chosen for investigation: colour terms, kinship terms, and quantifica- tion, with the latter focusing on numerals. In this chapter, we cover the back- ground of the study that has led to this volume. This includes information on the rationale for the study and its overall design, a section on the meth- odologies used for the study, and a summary of data we collected. We also summarise some of the generalisations that have emerged from a compara- tive survey of these data for each of the domains. As with previous studies in sign language typology (Zeshan 2006; Zeshan and Perniss 2008), this volume is the result of a project conducted over several years. Our study took place between 2010 and 2014, and in the process, we worked with many collaborators and co-researchers around the world (see Section 3 and Acknowledgements at the end of this chapter). As large-scale studies in sign language typology have developed over the past 10 years since the publication of the first (Zeshan 2006), the array of meth- odological tools and the research context have likewise undergone important developments. This chapter explores some of these issues. 1. Design of the study As pointed out in Palfreyman, Sagara and Zeshan (2014), one of the impor- tant considerations when designing a project in sign language typology is the choice of domain to be investigated. The present project followed a similar rationale as previous work on negatives and interrogatives (Zeshan 2004a, 2004b) and possessive and existential constructions (Zeshan and Perniss 2008) in terms of the characteristics of the research domain. First of all, all three domains are amply documented in spoken language research. Documentation of numerals, in particular cardinal numerals, has an extremely broad coverage across spoken languages (cf. Hammarström 2010), and colour terms have been of interest to spoken language linguists 4 Keiko Sagara and Ulrike Zeshan working on many different languages at least since the publication of the seminal article on the hierarchy of colour terms by Berlin and Kay (1969). Kinship terms have been of interest at the interface between linguistics and ethnography, sometimes being studied in much greater depth than was possible in our sign language data (e.g. Evans 2003 on Australian Aboriginal languages). Reviewing such studies in spoken language linguistics reveals significant linguistic diversity, in particular, the kind of patterned variation that provides interesting generalisations, such as distinguishing between different bases (e.g. Comrie 2013), or delineating a subgroup of basic colour terms (Berlin and Kay 1969). This ground work provided a good level of confidence to expect inter- esting patterned variation across sign languages too. In particular, the lexical sets in these domains tend to involve a significant degree of morphological complexity, in both signed and spoken languages. Conceptually, it makes sense to think of a network of relationships and sub-groupings within any lexicon with regard to these three domains. The structure of a family tree, even as a pre-theoretical notion, lends itself to many possible subdivisions, such as maternal and paternal relations, older and younger generations, etc. Larger numerals are typically constructed out of smaller ones, resulting in sub-sets within numeral paradigms. And any system of colour terms imposes a subdivision on the colour spectrum and has the potential to differentiate linguistically between lighter and darker shades, colour saturation, and the like. Such considerations led to the hypothesis that these three domains would constitute fertile ground for investigating morphological complexity and typological patterns within the lexicon of sign languages, as this is indeed what the project has found overall. Moreover, at least some published sources are available for a range of sign languages in these domains (see a review in Chapter 2 of this volume), and this is an important additional consideration, given that documentary sources on many sign languages are still scarce. Finally, an important consideration has been the viability of data collection from a wide range of genetically and geographically distinct sign languages (see Zeshan and Palfreyman, in press, on this issue). The three domains are central to any person’s daily experience, and therefore, eliciting the requisite vocabulary was going to be much easier than in the case of semantic fields that are less central to everyday human experience, such as temperature (cf. Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2015), or less accessible to immediate conscious recall, such as levels of social hierarchy or politeness phenomena in language, or the functioning of discourse markers (cf. Schiffrin 2001). With a view to collecting data from both linguists and non-linguists, these considerations Semantic fields in sign languages 5 have increased the range of data sources and collaborators that the project was able to access. Throughout the project, continuous efforts were made to gather data on sign languages all over the world, e.g. through mailing lists, the newsletter of the World Federation of the Deaf (WFD), the website of the International Institute for Sign Languages and Deaf Studies (iSLanDS), and emails to specific sign language experts in many countries. Unfortunately due to diffi- culties with technological access in Africa, it has not been possible to gather as much data as we would have liked from African partners and thus the study contains little representation of this continent. However, the representation of diversity, including in developing countries, is significant here and our project includes several rural sign languages, such as Alipur Sign Language in India. In all, the data encompass semantic fields from 33 different sign languages (see full list in Section 3). The study proceeded in three overlapping phases: 1. Recruiting a network of participants as co-researchers, who would work with the core research team on gathering information from their respective sign languages. In parallel, we developed a range of research tools to share with co-researchers. 2. In the data collection phase, this international network collaborated in collecting data, supported by our core research team. We also collected additional data directly at iSLanDS whenever possible. 3. All data were forwarded to iSLanDS for comparative analysis. Details of methodological processes and issues are discussed in the next section. 2. Methodological issues 2.1. Project management and working with participants At the beginning of the study, contributions were invited from both indi- vidual consultants and research groups. While consultants were not required to be professional linguists, it was stipulated that they should know their sign language very well and/or collaborate with highly skilled signers. The bene- fits of involvement in the project were highlighted, including a better under- standing of the participants and their respective sign languages; increased knowledge about the interesting differences between sign languages; 6 Keiko Sagara and Ulrike Zeshan experience in a partnership project where guidance is available for first-time researchers; many valuable international contacts; and the opportunity for the most interesting contributions to appear as a book chapter for an estab- lished series. Contact with co-researchers was initially established through a back- ground questionnaire that asked about their knowledge of linguistics, their relationship with the local Deaf community, the area where their sign language is used, and what dialects their language might have. It was crucial that all participants had some association with their local Deaf community in order to corroborate and substantiate their data. Where it was decided to proceed with the collaboration, research materials were sent to the informant, which consisted of questionnaires and various game activities for elicitation of data on colours, family relationships (kinship), and quantification. Participants were also asked to fill in a technical questionnaire, which enquired about their available capacity in terms of computers, internet speed, ability to produce CDs/DVDs for the transfer of data, and the like. Deaf organisations were especially targeted for this study, and all research materials were translated into International Sign to make it easy for these organisations to participate. Participants were not required to use all of the materials: they were told to use only those they felt were appropriate in their context. Explanations of how to use the materials were made available in English and in International Sign. Both versions were accessible on the iSLanDS website, which partici- pants were directed to in the first instance, and the research team communi- cated with co-researchers regularly to provide updates about the project and resolve individual queries. The translations of research materials into International Sign allowed participants with no, or very little, knowledge of English to participate. These International Sign explanations were presented in the form of a dialogue between two researchers, as this has proved to be an interesting innovation in the context of such projects. This resulted in several contributions by Deaf organisations