INTRODUCTION
Sign languages have been used by speech communities1
Akira Yamamoto pointed out that the very term “speech
community” (vs. sign community) reflects a language ideology that
is orally rather than manually centered. This critique notwithstanding,
since “speech community” is so widely accepted and
pervasively used in various academic circles, I have elected to use the
term here.
around the world for centuries, yet formal academic
recognition of the full linguistic status of codes
2 In this article the terms “code” and
“language” are used synonymously and interchangeably.
“Code” is utilized in this way for two purposes: to provide
readers relief from repetitive use of the word “language”
throughout the paper, but more importantly, to underscore the
distinction between “code” vs. “channel,” or
“language” vs. “modality.” This strategic use
of “code,” while accepted by many scholars, raises concerns
for others who object on the grounds that it hearkens back a time when
sign languages were not recognized as languages or were viewed as
inferior to spoken languages. Those who dislike use of the term
“code” argue that it risks confusing or conflating the
distinction between, for example, American Sign Language (which has a
grammar distinct from English) and Signed English (which follows the
syntax of English). I acknowledge these concerns but draw a different
conclusion regarding the advantages and disadvantages of using the term
“code.”
Therefore, throughout this article “code” and
“language” are used synonymously: the Japanese language =
the code of Japanese. Code/language is distinguished from
channel/modality (e.g., written, oral-aural, manual-visual,
manual-tactile). From this distinction, it follows that while American
English is a language usually expressed in the written or oral
channels, it can be manually coded and expressed on the hands; the
result is manually coded English, or what is often referred to as
Signed English. Yet American Sign Language and Signed English are
different languages. Finally, in this article all codes (Thai, Thai
Sign Language, Nyoh, Ban Khor Sign Language) – signed or spoken
– are understood to be full and complete but distinct languages
that stand in equal, not inferior, relationships to one another.
expressed in the manual-visual channel is a recent phenomenon. The
field of sign language linguistics emerged only in the 1960s, and since
then, most research has focused on national sign languages of countries
in North America and western Europe (e.g., American Sign Language,
British Sign Language, French Sign Language), although research has
expanded gradually to other areas of the world.
In addition to national sign languages, there are numerous indigenous
and original sign languages (see below). Far less is known about the
latter language varieties – most of which are completely
undescribed, and many of which are highly endangered. This dearth of
information about indigenous and original sign language varieties is
regrettable, because it is often such languages that preserve unique or
less common linguistic features, reflect the true linguistic diversity
associated with natural human sign languages, and thereby enrich our
understanding of universal grammar and linguistic typology. Moreover,
indigenous and original sign language varieties represent crucial
pieces in the puzzle of constructing “sign language
families” (Woodward 1993, Zeshan 2003), an endeavor that in turn promises to
expand the field of historical-comparative linguistics.
This article has two primary aims. The first is to focus attention on
the problem of benign neglect of sign languages, especially indigenous
and original sign languages, which have been largely forgotten in most
discussions of language endangerment. The second goal is to demonstrate
the importance of documenting and preserving these codes by presenting
examples – a rare phonological form, basic color terminology, and
baby talk/motherese – of what is at stake, and what might be
learned from study or lost through neglect of an endangered indigenous
sign language in Thailand.
Toward these two ends, I begin by addressing the questions of why
benign neglect of sign languages occurs and how it contributes to the
problem of language endangerment. Then, building directly on a new
model (Woodward 2000) of sign language
typologies in Southeast Asia, I outline what is currently known about
sign languages, linguistic diversity, and sign language endangerment in
Thailand. Finally, drawing on original anthropological linguistic data
from Ban Khor Sign Language, I demonstrate some of the contributions
that endangered sign languages promise to make to our collective
knowledge of linguistics and anthropology.
SIGN LANGUAGE VARIETIES IN THAILAND
Underdocumented and underrepresented linguistic
diversity
I have conceptually outlined the problem of benign neglect of sign
languages in the previous section; this section examines a real-world
example of the problem in Thailand – a linguistically diverse
country poised to become a regional center of sign language linguistic
research – where until recently little attention has been paid to
codes expressed in the manual-visual channel and where sign language
endangerment is a serious problem.7
In the
1990s, at the behest of HRH Princess Mahachakri Sirindhorn, Thailand
established Ratchasuda College (Mahidol University at Salaya), the
first institution in Southeast Asia – and one of only four
worldwide – dedicated to providing tertiary education to deaf
students. In addition to its mission to educate Thai deaf students,
Ratchasuda College was also envisioned as a regional research and
training center for study of sign languages in Thailand and other
Southeast Asian countries. Sign language linguistic research in
Southeast Asia is slowly but steadily expanding to include other
countries such as Vietnam (Woodward 1997,
2000), Myanmar (Owen Wrigley, personal
communication, 1999), and Indonesia (Branson & Miller
1996).
Thailand's “language ecology”
has been characterized as one of “linguistic diversity and
national unity” (
Smalley 1994). To
date, however, none of the major sociolinguistic surveys of Thailand
(
Gainey & Thongkum 1977,
Smalley 1994, Institute for Language, Culture, and
Rural Development in press) has included sign languages found in the
country. Furthermore, no mention of manual-visual codes is included in
the literature on endangered languages of Thailand (e.g.,
Bradley 1989,
Matisoff
1991).
8 An earlier, unpublished
version of the present article was presented in January 2002 at the 8th
International Thai Studies Conference in Nakhon Phanom, Thailand. It
constituted the first discussion of sign languages as endangered
languages in Thailand.
Thus, the true extent of the
country's linguistic diversity has yet to be fully recognized or
appreciated because an entire class of languages – sign languages
– remains largely unexplored.
This dearth of information about sign languages in Thailand is
unfortunate for many reasons. To begin with, we do not know how many
sign languages actually exist in the country. Preliminary linguistic
survey work (Woodward & Nonaka 1997,
Nonaka 2000, Woodward
2000, Nonaka 2001a), conducted first
in collaboration with James C. Woodward9
James C. Woodward is the leading figure working on
comparative sign language linguistics in Southeast Asia, and his work
is frequently cited in this article. I had the privilege to work with
“Woody” for two years in the Research Department at
Ratchasuda College, Mahidol University, Thailand. Intellectually I am
deeply indebted to him, and I appreciate his generosity in sharing the
data we collected together.
and later independently by this
author, confirms the existence of at least seven sign language
varieties.
10 The seven confirmed sign
language varieties known to exist or to have existed in Thailand are
Thai Sign Language, Old Bangkok Sign Language, Old Chiangmai Sign
Language, Ban Khor Sign Language, plus three more indigenous sign
languages identified below in note 15. In addition to the seven
confirmed sign languages, there are credible but as yet unconfirmed
reports from the National Association of the Deaf in Thailand of other
sign languages in other regions of Thailand: in the South as well as in
the Chiangmai and Chiangrai areas.
Yet, with only one
exception – Thai Sign Language – little is known about
these languages, most of which, unfortunately, are highly endangered.
Furthermore, the absence of even first-pass descriptions of most of
these codes prevents meaningful comparison of their areal, genetic,
historical, typological, and universal characteristics, not only
between and among the languages but also with sign languages found
outside of Thailand.
Based on recent research he conducted in Southeast Asia, Woodward
(1996, 1997, 2000) has proposed a new tripartite model of sign
language varieties. He outlines three general types of sign languages
– national, indigenous, and original – all of which can be
found in Thailand.11
Although
Woodward's theoretical discussion is limited to sign language
varieties in Thailand and Southeast Asia, potential applications of the
model to other areas of the world seem promising.
The
remainder of this section defines these three types of sign languages
in Thailand and summarizes what is currently known about them, about
linguistic diversity, and about endangerment of manual-visual codes in
that country.
National sign languages (e.g., Thai Sign Language)
Modern Standard Thai Sign Language (MSTSL), often referred to simply
as Thai Sign Language (TSL)12
Ethnologue (2001) uses TSQ,
rather than TSL, to refer to Thai Sign Language.
(
Suwanarat et al. 1990,
SIL
2001), is the language of the country's national Deaf community.
TSL is used by an estimated 56,000 deaf people in Thailand (
Reilly & Suvannus 1999). It is relatively well
documented and does not appear to be endangered. In fact, TSL recently
was recognized, first in a speech
13 HRH
Princess Mahachakri Sirindhorn acknowledged TSL as the language of Thai
deaf people in an address given to formally open the Nippon-Gallaudet
World Deaf Leadership program at Ratchasuda College, Mahidol University
at Salaya in summer 1998.
by Princess Mahachakri Sirindhorn
delivered at Ratchasuda College, and subsequently “in a formal
resolution by the Royal Thai Government as ‘the national language
of Thai deaf people.’ The rights of deaf people to learn this
distinct sign language as their first language at home and in
schools” were further affirmed in a resolution signed by the
Permanent Secretary for Education on 17 August 1999 (
Reilly 1999).
Comparative lexicostatistical analysis has revealed that TSL is a
language distinct from but closely related to ASL, and that the two
codes belong to the same sign language family (Woodward 1996:245). Upon first consideration, this
degree of linguistic relatedness between the two sign languages would
seem unlikely for obvious areal-geographic reasons. However, the two
codes are indeed related because of language contact and creolization
(Woodward 1996:245) that occurred some 50
years ago when ASL was introduced into Thailand by Thai educators at
the School for Deaf Children at Dusit District, Bangkok – the
forerunner of the institution now known as Sesathien School for the
Deaf (Sathaporn 1987:283).
The history of formal deaf education, and the tendency toward
pedagogical vacillation between oral and manual philosophies and
practices, is a complicated one. Suffice it to say that when ASL was
introduced into Thailand – notably, before the emergence of sign
language linguistics – it was widely assumed that special
education necessitated “giving” deaf people what they
supposedly lacked: the ability to communicate. In other words, it was
assumed that Thai Deaf people lacked a sign language of their own, or
if they did have one, that it was inferior to ASL.14
The founder of deaf education in Thailand, Khunying (Lady)
Kamala Krairiksh, and other early educators trained in or borrowed
heavily from the USA. For example, the Thai manual alphabet (see note
35) was invented in collaboration with American professors at Gallaudet
College during the 1950s. In addition, Deaf adults age 50 and over who
were members of the first class at the Dusit deaf school, as well as
retired teachers from that institution, recall that early on American
Sign Language was introduced wholesale at the school. Later, Thai deaf
educators, mirroring trends in American deaf education, began
developing initialized signs, a system of Signed Exact Thai, and so on.
Much to the consternation of many adult members of the Thai Deaf
community, whose native language is Thai Sign Language, ASL continues
to exert an influence in deaf schools across the country. As Dr.
Maliwan Tammsaeng, the director of Sesathien School for the Deaf,
laments: “'I've fought for years to get the Hearing
teachers to stop using ASL or making up their own signs for
things” (Deshaw 1995).
Both
assumptions were, of course, wrong.
ASL was not introduced into a sociolinguistic vacuum. In fact, as
Woodward 1996 has demonstrated, there were at
least two, and perhaps more, original sign language varieties (and
probably a number of indigenous sign languages) already present in
Thailand prior to the 1950s. It was these local Thai sign language
varieties, discussed in more detail below, and their creolization with
ASL (Woodward 1996) that gave rise to TSL.
In addition to the national sign language, Thailand is home to a
number of indigenous and original sign language varieties.
Unfortunately, both types of codes tend to be vulnerable to language
endangerment and extinction. Exactly how many indigenous and original
sign languages exist or have existed is unknown. However, research
demonstrates the presence of at least six such sign language
varieties.15
There are six confirmed
original or indigenous sign languages in Thailand. Besides Old Bangkok,
Old Chiangmai, and Ban Khor Sign Language, I have identified three
additional indigenous sign languages found in Nakhon Phanom province:
Huay Hai, Plaa Pag, and Na Sai sign languages. I first learned of the
existence of those indigenous sign languages through contacts at the
Issarn regional chapter of the National Association of the Deaf in
Thailand (NADT). Liaisoning with Issarn NADT, I traveled to the three
villages and met native deaf signers there. In addition, I had the
opportunity to interview deaf people from each of the villages who
attended a short-course occupational training program sponsored by
Issarn NADT that was held in the provincial capital of Nakhon Phanom.
Further research is required, but early observation suggests that Huay
Hai, Plaa Pag, and Na Sai sign languages are distinct from one another
as well as from Ban Khor Sign Language, Old Bangkok Sign Language, Old
Chiangmai Sign Language, and Modern Standard Thai Sign
Language.
Brief summaries of both language types follow.
Indigenous sign languages (e.g., Ban Khor Sign
Language)
In contrast to national sign languages, indigenous sign languages
typically are restricted in use to small (often agrarian village or
island fishing) communities (Kushel 1973, Frishberg 1987, Woodward 1982a,
Groce 1985, Johnson 1991,
Torigoe, Takei & Kimura 1995, Branson & Miller 1996). The cultural notion of a
“big D” Deaf community and Deaf culture – which so
frequently corresponds with national sign languages – usually is not
found in speech communities associated with indigenous sign languages. In
speech communities of the latter type, it is common to find neutral to
positive attitudes toward deafness, deaf people, and sign language;
widespread fluency in the local sign language among hearing people in
the community; and a high degree of integration of deaf people into the
mainstream of village society. As mentioned before, indigenous sign
languages and the sociolinguistic environments that sustain them are
frequently highly endangered.
Pasa kidd or pasa bai, translated ‘language
(of the) mute’16
Locally, Ban Khor
Sign Language is referred to as either pasa kidd or pasa
bai, both of which translate as ‘language (of the)
mute’; pasa means ‘language’. Bai
is the Thai word for ‘mute’. Kidd, which also
means ‘mute’, is a word from Nyoh, the dominant spoken
language in the community of Ban Khor.
(see Appendix)
17 The Thai-English glossary in the Appendix
provides phonetic transcriptions and translations of Thai terms used in
this paper. It is important to note that there is no single, accepted
system for Thai-English phonetic and tonal transcription. Rather, there
are a number of commonly used conventions. Unfortunately, not all the
tonal and phonetic markings of a given transcription system are
included in the font selections of various computer programs. For this
reason, the glossary is divided into four columns: 1) romanized
transcription of Thai words as they appear in the text; 2) phonetic and
tonal notation; 3) Thai script; and 4) English translations of the Thai
words.
, or what I refer to as Ban Khor Sign Language
18 I would prefer to use a local term,
pasa kidd or pasa bai, to name the sign language used
in the community of Ban Khor, but this is not possible because there
are other indigenous sign languages also called pasa bai
‘language [of the] mute’ that are used in other
Thai villages. For the sake of descriptive precision and clarity I have
adopted the name “Ban Khor Sign Language” to refer
specifically to the manual-visual code used in that community.
(
Woodward & Nonaka 1997,
Woodward 2000), is an example of an indigenous sign
language in Thailand. Ban Khor is a small, rice-cultivating community
with a population of approximately 2,000, located in the northeastern
Issarn region. In Ban Khor, the number of profoundly deaf inhabitants
is reported to be 1.5 to 3 times greater than expected, and some
sub-villages, such as Moo 2, are reported to have more than one deaf
person per 100, which is 5 to 10 times the expected population (
Woodward & Nonaka 1997).
19 It is widely accepted that 1 per 1,000 individuals will be
born profoundly deaf or become deaf at an early age (Schein & Delk 1974).
In response to
this high incidence of deafness, villagers spontaneously developed the
local sign language approximately 60 to 80 years ago, but its continued
survival is increasingly threatened by demographic changes in the
population, increasing occupational and educational differentiation
among villagers, and the increasing influence of TSL, which is rapidly
entering the community (
Nonaka 2000).
Original sign languages (e.g., Old Bangkok and Old
Chiangmai varieties)
Original sign languages are the third type of sign language variety
found in Thailand. Old Bangkok Sign Language and Old Chiangmai Sign
Language (Woodward 1996) are two examples of
original sign languages that pre-date the national sign language. Both
languages are moribund, remembered (e.g., in formal linguistic
elicitation sessions) by a few signers over the age of 45 but no longer
utilized in daily conversation. It is difficult to establish with
precision when (i.e., time/date estimates) and where (i.e., exact
speech community boundaries) these languages developed. However, as to
the “why” and “how” of their development, Woodward 1997 has hypothesized that in the case of
Thailand, original sign language varieties developed in market towns
and urban areas, places where deaf people had opportunities to meet and
interact.
From a comparative-historical linguistic perspective, learning more
about original sign language varieties in Thailand is an important and
increasingly urgent matter. “The development and spread of MSTSL
[Modern Standard Thai Sign Language], while providing a
nationally unifying force for Thai deaf people, has at the same time
endangered original sign languages in Thailand” (Woodward 1996:245). This endangerment is both
ironic and unfortunate. It is ironic to the extent that Old Bangkok and
Old Chiangmai (and perhaps other) sign languages were the very codes
that creolized with ASL to produce TSL. Loss of these original codes is
unfortunate for many reasons, but particularly because they are
critical “link languages” (Woodward
2000:34) that hold important clues for constructing Asian sign
language families (Woodward 1993, 2000).
BAN KHOR SIGN LANGUAGE: POTENTIAL
CONTRIBUTIONS TO LINGUISTICS AND ANTHROPOLOGY
The preceding section summarized what is currently known about sign
languages in Thailand. Regrettably, there is much – too much
– that remains unknown about these languages, especially
indigenous and original signed codes, most of which are endangered and
undocumented. Focusing on three examples – a rare phonological
form, basic color terminology, and baby talk/motherese – from
Ban Khor Sign Language (the indigenous sign language mentioned
earlier), this section demonstrates some potential contributions to
linguistics and anthropology that can be derived from study of
undescribed, underdescribed, and endangered sign languages.
It must be emphasized that these are preliminary findings. Initial
observations, analyses, and claims of significance might be subject to
revision at a later date. However, if presentation of the following
findings about Ban Khor Sign Language succeeds either in expanding
discussion of linguistic diversity in Thailand to include sign
languages or in focusing attention on the urgent problem of sign
language endangerment, then a contribution has been made.
Expanding the known phonological inventory of signed
languages
Study of Ban Khor Sign Language promises to expand the known
phonological inventory of signed languages. Ban Khor Sign Language
includes phonological forms that are rare, if not unique – that
is, previously undescribed. For example, consider the lexemes
‘name’ and ‘foreigner’ shown in Figure 1. In the remainder of this subsection, I
will examine those two signs to demonstrate how our understanding of
sign language phonology might be enhanced from study of indigenous
codes like Ban Khor Sign Language.
“Name” and Foreigner” in Ban Khor Sign
Language.
Traditionally, sign language phonology theory has described signs in
terms of four parameters: handshape, location, movement, and palm
orientation.20
The first three parameters
– handshape, location, and movement – were proposed by
Stokoe 1960, 1978.
The fourth parameter, palm orientation, was proposed subsequently by
Battison 1980.
In terms of
handshape, the Ban Khor Sign Language words ‘name’ and
‘foreigner’ are unremarkable, utilizing one of the most
basic handshapes, “b,” in sign language phonology.
21 Phonological notation of sign languages is
heavily influenced by American Sign Language. Because sign language
research began in the United States, many phonological handshapes are
described with reference to ASL manual letters or to signs made with
the same hand configurations. This notational bias resembles that of
the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), which was developed in the
nineteenth century by British and French phoneticians and which was
based on the Roman and Greek alphabets.
The “b”
hand configuration, pictured in
Figure 2, has
two variations – the extended-thumb and bent-thumb versions.
22 The graphics in Figure
2 originally appeared in The signs of language (1979) and are reprinted here with permission from the
original author, Ursula Bellugi of the Salk Institute, La Jolla,
California.
The “b” handshape is one of the
“B-A-S-C-O-1-5” set (
Battison 1978),
which refers to the seven most basic or “universal” handshapes
(
Figure 2). The unmarked “B-A-S-C-O-1-5”
handshapes appear in all known sign languages of the world and would be
expected to occur in all as yet undocumented sign languages.
Selected hand configurations. (Figures reprinted from The
Signs of Language, Klima, Bellugi & Battison et
al., 1979.)
With regard to location and movement, the two lexemes are both common
and uncommon. They are common to the extent that they are made on the
face. Many signs in ASL (Battison 1978), as
well as in other sign languages (Nonaka
1997), are made on or near the face. Some scholars (Siple 1978b, Mandel 1981)
have even suggested that signs are “built to be
‘seen’” and “shaped by the requirements of the
body” (Baker-Shenk & Cokely 1980:80,
82), arguing that prolific articulation of signs in the facial area is
directly linked to maximization of visual acuity.
Regardless of whether or not visual acuity bio-evolutionarily
determines or drives sign production in the facial area, scholars
studying historical-comparative linguistic change in ASL (Battison
1974, 1978; Frishberg 1975, Klima et al.
1979; Woodward 1976, 1978; Woodward & De Santis
1977; Woodward & Erting 1975;
Woodward et al. 1976) have identified certain
patterns for directional change in sign languages over time.
Predictable changes include the following tendencies: (i) two-handed
signs become one-handed signs; (ii) compound signs become simplified;
(iii) symmetry develops in two-handed signs; (iv) production of signs
made below the face/head move toward the midline, from visually
peripheral to central locations; and (v) signs made on or at the face
to shift to its periphery because of a dispreference for articulation
of signs that block the face.23
This
claim of dispreference is based on the argument that signs that block
the face obscure important non-manual features of the sign
language.
Related to the last pattern, in cases where signs
are produced in the center (non-peripheral) area of the face, there is
a tendency for such signs to move rather than to remain stationary on
or at the face.
Clearly the Ban Khor Sign Language terms ‘name’ and
‘foreigner’ do not conform to pattern (v), the
dispreference for articulation of signs that block the face such that
signs made on/at the face shift to its periphery. The two signs,
especially the word ‘foreigner’, are made directly on the
front, central region of the face. Moreover, they do not involve
movement but instead remain stationary in that area. This blocking of
the face makes the signs phonologically unusual.
The two lexemes, however, are phonologically quite rare, if not
“unique,”24
Because this
research is in the early phases, I have not yet completed a
comprehensive, systematic study of this particular palm orientation
compared with all other documented sign languages. However, the
assertion that this particular palm orientation is rare is based on a
combination of factors: (i) personal discussions and correspondence
with sign language linguists in the United States, (ii) interviews with
several Thai Deaf native TSL signers, (iii) previous comparative
anthropological linguistic research I conducted in Thailand, Japan, and
the USA, and (iv) examination of existing resources (e.g. dictionaries
and grammars) on Thai Sign Language, Japanese Sign Language, and
American Sign Language.
when analyzed in terms of palm
orientation: the palm rotated 90° to 270° from positions
commonly associated with the “b” handshape. For example, in
Japanese Sign Language (JSL), ASL, and TSL, there are three palm
orientations associated with the “b” handshape:
- Palm touching or oriented toward the signer's face
- Palm facing outward (to right or left) away from the signer's
dominant25
As Valli & Lucas (1992:19)
explain, “The term dominant will be used to refer to the
hand preferred for most motor tasks, and nondominant will
refer to the other hand…. Signers can be characterized as being
either left-handed with respect to signing or right-handed with respect
to signing. For most signers with right (left) hand dominance, their
right (left) hand will assume the active role most of the
time.”
- Palm facing outward away from the signer's face (back of the
palm touching or oriented toward the signer's face)
Examples of these three palm orientations appear in Figures 3, 4, and 5 respectively.26
Comparative examples of signs with similar palm orientations
in Japanese Sign Language, American Sign Language, and Thai Sign Language
were taken from the following sources: An English dictionary of basic
Japanese signs (JFD 1991), A basic course
in American Sign Language (Humphries et al.
1985), and The Thai Sign Language dictionary (Suwanarat et al. 1990).
“B” handshape palm-orientation #1. (Figures
reprinted from An English Dictionary of Japanese Signs,
Japanese Federation of the Deaf, 1991; A Basic
Course in American Sign Language, Humphries, Padden
& O'Rourke, 1985; The Thai Sign Language Dictionary,
Suwanarat et al., 1990.)
“B” handshape palm-orientation #2. (Figures
reprinted from An English Dictionary of Japanese Signs,
Japanese Federation of the Deaf, 1991; A Basic
Course in American Sign Language, Humphries, Padden
& O'Rourke, 1985; The Thai Sign Language Dictionary,
Suwanarat et al., 1990.)
“B” handshape palm-orientation #3. (Figures
reprinted from An English Dictionary of Japanese Signs,
Japanese Federation of the Deaf, 1991; A Basic
Course in American Sign Language, Humphries, Padden
& O'Rourke, 1985; The Thai Sign Language Dictionary,
Suwanarat et al., 1990.)
Now consider the three preceding examples of known palm orientations
of “b” handshape signs with the palm orientation of the Ban
Khor Sign Language terms ‘name’ and
‘foreigner’. Articulation of the two Ban Khor Sign Language
words involves rotation of the arm 90° from the palm orientation of
the signs in Figure 3, 180° from the palm
orientation of the signs in Figure 4, and
270° from the palm orientation of the signs in Figure 5. It is important to note that most of the
signs in Figures 3, 4,
and 5 either are made at “peripheral”
areas of the face or involve movement away from or out of the center of the
face. By contrast, the two Ban Khor signs remain stationary, produced
directly on the front, central region of the face.
Just as clicks in Bantu languages and dental plosives followed by
bilabial trills in the Chapakuran languages Wari and Oro Win (Ladefoged & Everett 1996) expanded the known
phonological inventory of spoken languages, Ban Khor Sign Language
includes unusual phonological forms that promise to broaden our
collective knowledge of the phonological inventory of signed languages,
and by extension all natural human languages. Interviews with Deaf
native users of TSL reveal that the phonological form associated with
the lexemes ‘name’ and ‘foreigner’ in Ban Khor
Sign Language does not exist in TSL – a fact dramatically
underscored by the new TSL sign for the village of Ban Khor, which
combines the Ban Khor sign ‘name’ with the TSL sign
‘there/over there’. In addition, the contact point
– ulnar side of the hand touching the face – associated
with the signs ‘name’ and ‘foreigner’ in Ban
Khor Sign Language is also an impossible contact point in ASL, and it
would not be predicted to occur in other sign languages based on what
is currently known about sign language phonology.27
Marina McIntire noted that it might be possible to argue
that the ASL sign ‘schizophrenic’ is made using a palm
orientation similar to the one associated with the Ban Khor Sign
Language lexemes ‘name’ and ‘foreigner’.
However, the contact points differ, with the ASL sign making contact at
the fingertips and the Ban Khor signs making contact on the ulnar side
of the hand.
However, its demonstrated existence in Ban Khor
Sign Language – an endangered code used by fewer than 1,000
speaker/signers – underscores the importance of documenting
sign language isolates.
Basic color terminology in Ban Khor Sign Language
Color terminology has long been a standard component of
anthropological linguistic inquiry. Traditionally such research has
encompassed two broad domains of study –
descriptive/linguistic and perceptual/psychological –
that have been conducted both for code-specific linguistic
documentation and for universal cross-linguistic comparison. In the
20th century, color became “the empirical domain par excellence
in which to argue for (and against) the linguistic relativity
thesis” (Berlin 2001:27).
The literature on color terminology and perception has grown
exponentially since publication of Berlin & Kay's (1969) classic study.28
“In 1969, using the original stimulus set of
Lenneberg and Roberts, Brent Berlin and Paul Kay compared the
denotations of basic color terms in twenty languages, and based on
these findings, examined the descriptions of seventy-eight additional
languages from the literature. They reported that there are universals
in the semantics of color: the major color terms of all languages being
focused on one of eleven landmark colors. Further, they postulated an
evolutionary sequence for the development of basic color lexicons
according to which black and white precede red, red precedes green and
yellow, green and yellow precede blue, blue precedes brown, and brown
precedes purple, pink, orange, and gray” (Berlin
2001:28).
Comparative research has generated significant
debate, which in turn has resulted in numerous definitions and redefinitions
of the phenomena involved. Because it is far beyond the scope of this paper,
no thorough review of the post-1969 Berlin & Kay literature is attempted
here. However, in this early phase of research, study of basic color terms in
Ban Khor Sign Language seems potentially useful for descriptive, comparative,
and perhaps even universal analytical purposes.
Preliminary research into basic color terms in Ban Khor Sign Language
appears both to confirm and to challenge aspects of the traditional
theory of universal color terminology. Ban Khor Sign Language is a
three-color-term language (Nonaka 2001b).
Consistent with Berlin & Kay's (1969) original prediction, those three basic color
terms, shown in Figure 6, are
‘black’, ‘white’, and ‘red’.
The three basic color terms in Ban Khor Sign
Language.
Expression of other colors in Ban Khor Sign Language is achieved in
one of two ways (Nonaka 2001b). First, a
visual search of the immediate physical environment is undertaken. If
an object of the appropriate color can be found, then the speaker
points to that object to indicate the color in question. For example,
in Figure 7 a native Ban Khor signer
describes the color of a carrot by pointing to an orange notebook atop
a nearby table: ‘A carrot is … [color search is
launched] … orange like this notebook [consultant
points to an orange notebook].’
Expression of non-basic color terms. Example: A successful color
search of objects in the immediate environment “A carrot is
… [color search launched] …”
“… orange like this notebook [consultant points to
orange notebook].”
Not all color searches, however, are successful. If the color in
question cannot be located in the immediate environment, then nonbasic
color terms are expressed using one of the three basic color terms
– black, white, or red. As an example, see Figure 8. Having scanned the
local environment without locating any object similar in color to the
deep purple hue characteristic of an eggplant, the linguistic
consultant code-switched into Thai Sign Language and said that she
really wanted to describe the eggplant as ‘purple’.29
More information about the TSL sign
‘purple’ appears later in this section and also in Figure 12.
She went on to explain that
‘there is no sign for “purple”’ in
pasa
kidd,
30 The English gloss of her
actual TSL utterance is ‘purple none’.
so
code-switching back to Ban Khor Sign Language, she described the
vegetable as ‘black’.
Expression of non-basic color terms. Example: An unsuccessful color
search of objects in the immediate environment “An eggplant is
… [color search launched but when no object of the
appropriate color is found] …” (a) [code
switching to Thai Sign Language] … “I really want to
say ‘purple’ but there's no sign for
‘purple’ (in Ban Khor Sign Language) …” (b)
[code switching back to Ban Khor Sign Language] …
“It's black.”
To the extent that Ban Khor Sign Language has three color terms, and
those terms are ‘black’, ‘white’, and
‘red’, the indigenous sign language appears to conform to
Berlin & Kay's theory. However, Ban Khor Sign Language also
appears to contradict their theory in at least one important way: by
challenging the operational definition of a “basic” color
term. By definition, basic color terms should refer to pure color and
not to an object representing the color; thus, gold,
turquoise, and orange are not basic color terms. In
Ban Khor Sign Language, however, all three basic color terms are signed
by pointing to objects – body parts – that represent those
colors: hair for ‘black’, teeth for ‘white’,
and lips for ‘red’ (see Figure
6).
It is important to note here that ‘black’,
‘white’, and ‘red’ are fully lexicalized in Ban
Khor Sign Language. Thus, the pointing31
Studies of lexicalized pointing in ASL strongly suggest
that such signs are not analyzed as iconic by the native signer (Petitto 1987, Emmorey et al.
1995).
(to hair, teeth, and lips) involved in those
signs is different from the pointing (embedded in color searches)
associated with expression of other colors, which are not lexicalized
in the language. In other words, although the historical origin of the
three basic color terms may have been based in iconic representation,
that is no longer the case.
32 It is worth
noting that in a number of sign languages, certain color terms –
especially ‘black’, ‘white’, and
‘red’ – appear to have originated as iconic
representations before being lexicalized.
As Kelly Stack
(personal communication, 2002) has pointed out to me, “Further
study of relatively young signed languages, such as Ban Khor Sign
Language, would be helpful in order to decide whether the iconic
historical roots of such color terms pose a challenge to Berlin and Kay
or whether the synchronic arbitrariness of the signal supports their
original definition.” In addition, study of relatively young
manual-visual codes offers rare opportunities for testing the
“Emergence Hypothesis” (
Kay & Maffi
1999), and by extension “the typology and evolutionary
trajectories of basic color term systems” (
Berlin 2001:29).
Finally, studying differences and similarities between the color
lexicons of the various sign languages in Thailand is useful for
comparative and historical linguistic purposes. For example, there is
evidence that, like Ban Khor Sign Language, both Old Bangkok Sign
Language (Figure 9) and Old Chiangmai Sign
Language (Figure 10) were three-color term
languages.33
Old Bangkok and Old Chiangmai
sign languages are moribund codes. The languages are remembered by and
can be elicited from signers over age 45. The data cited here were
elicited using a modified version of the Swadesh word list from two
male Thai Deaf signers, one born and raised in Bangkok and the other in
Chiangmai. Both men attended residential deaf school in Bangkok as
children, were members of the first cohort of deaf students at the
original deaf school in Dusit District, and as adults have been leaders
in the Thai Deaf community.
The modified Swadesh word list was also used to elicit signs from
younger adult Thai Deaf signers in the metropolitan Bangkok area who
are monolingual in Modern Standard Thai Sign Language. Their elicited
signs for ‘black’, ‘white’, and
‘red’ were compared with and found identical to the signs
for those words listed in the Thai Sign Language dictionary
(Suwanarat et al. 1990). The TSL dictionary clearly
demonstrates that modern standard Thai Sign Language is not a three-color-term
language, and that colors other than the three core color terms are expressed
using initialized signs.
Study of color terms in Ban Khor Sign Language is an ongoing
endeavor. The data on color terms cited here were collected from three
native Ban Khor signers, two deaf and one hearing. Each consultant used
the same three signs for expression of the three basic color terms and
employed the same strategies for expression of other color terms,
namely launch of a color search of the immediate environment for an
object of the appropriate color, or use of one of the three basic color
terms for expression of other color terms when a color search of the
environment proved unsuccessful.
Furthermore, it seems that in
those two languages the three core color terms also were expressed by
referring to parts of the body: hair
34 There is possible evidence to suggest that in addition to
the sign ‘hair’/black (Figure
8), another sign ‘eyebrow’/black also existed in
Old Chiangmai Sign Language. However, at this early stage of research,
I would prefer to err on the side of caution and assume that the
linguistic consultant who demonstrated the sign
‘eyebrow’/black was providing the Modern Standard Thai
Sign Language lexeme ‘eyebrow’/black, prior to
demonstrating the older sign, ‘hair’/black.
for ‘black’, upper or inner arm (areas typically covered by
shirtsleeves and thus white in color compared to the tanned lower arm)
for ‘white’, and lips for ‘red’.
The three basic color terms in Old Bangkok Sign
Language.
The three basic color terms in Old Chiangmai Sign
Language.
TSL has a markedly different color term system: a multi-term color
lexicon. Interestingly, however, careful analysis of the various TSL
color terms reveals two different types of color vocabulary. As in the
country's other sign languages, the three most basic color terms
in TSL refer to body parts bearing the appropriate color –
eyebrow/‘black’, upper arm/‘white’, and
lips/‘red’ (Figure 11).
However, as the examples in Figure 12 show,
other color terms (e.g., ‘pink’, ‘purple’,
‘yellow’) are “initialized signs,” meaning that
they are made using a fingerspelled letter from the Thai manual
alphabet.35
The Thai fingerspelling
system, a manual representation of the Thai alphabet, was invented by
Khunying Kamala Krairiksh, the first principal of the Sesathian School
for the Deaf (Sathaporn 1987:283). She developed
the system during the 1950s while studying at Gallaudet University and in
cooperation with her faculty advisors there. Thus, many letters of the Thai
manual alphabet are similar to letters in the ASL fingerspelling
system.
The three basic color terms in Thai Sign Language.
Examples of initialized color terms in Thai Sign Language. (Figures
reprinted from The Thai Sign Language Dictionary, Suwanarat et al., 1990.)
Most TSL color words are initialized signs. For example, the sign for
‘pink’ is made using the initialized sign “ch”
for chomphuu in sii chomphuu, the Thai word for
‘pink’. Similarly, the TSL sign for ‘purple’ is
made with the fingerspelled letter “m,” which is the first
letter of muang in sii muang
‘purple’, and ‘yellow’, or sii
luang, is initialized with the letter “l.”
These three signs are typical of the general workings of the second
type of TSL color term vocabulary – initialized signs that point
to language contact and borrowing from Thai.
Clearly, initialized signs are of a different order than the signs
for ‘black’, ‘white’, and ‘red’ in
TSL; and the TSL multi-color lexicon is distinct from those of the
other known sign languages found in Thailand. Thus, research on color
terminology in sign languages in Thailand would appear to be promising
for cross-linguistic comparative descriptive purposes, historical
linguistic purposes, and perhaps for universal comparative purposes.
Baby talk or motherese in Ban Khor Sign Language
In most languages and cultures – although not all (Ochs &
Schieffelin 1984, 1986) – adult caregivers, particularly
mothers, use a special form of their native language that is
specifically modified for use with infants and/or small children.
This linguistic register is known as “baby talk” or
“motherese,” and it comprises “any special form of a
language which is regarded by a speech community as being primarily
appropriate for talking to young children and which is generally
regarded as not the normal adult use of language” (Ferguson 1964, reprinted in Dil 1971:114).
Where it occurs, baby talk or motherese is commonly assumed to
simplify language learning and to contribute to the linguistic
development of children. In languages and speech communities where baby
talk/motherese is used, a typical or “canonical form
develops” (Ferguson in Dil 1971:123).
Linguistically, baby talk/motherese involves noticeable changes in
phonology, syntax, and lexicon, and even in the paralinguistics of
normal language, including the use of special lexical items, mostly
monosyllabic words, reduplications, and lack of inflectional affixes
(Ferguson in Dil 1971:116–24).
Considerable comparative research has been conducted on baby
talk/motherese in spoken languages (e.g., Ferguson 1964, 1977; Von Raffler-Engel & Lebrun 1976; Williamson 1979; Blount
1982; Zeidner 1983). Far less is known
about baby talk/motherese in signed languages, especially codes
other than ASL.
Preliminary research (Nonaka 2001, 2004) indicates that Ban Khor Sign Language has a form
of baby talk/motherese. Adults use the register to communicate with
infants and small children aged two years or younger. Characteristic features
of the special linguistic register include (i) heightened affect, (ii)
active physical stimulation of the child, (iii) signing more slowly
than usual, (iv) signing close to the child to maximize visual
attention, (v) signing on the child's body, and (vi)
repetition.
All the features of baby talk/motherese in Ban Khor Sign Language
described above are found in the 16-second segment of natural
conversation transcribed below. Differences in modality (manual-visual
sign language vs. printed text) make it impossible to fully depict the
videotaped sequence of talk here. Nevertheless, where it was feasible,
still frame-grabs were extracted and are presented in Figures
13, 14, and 15 to illustrate four of the features – heightened
affect, active stimulation of the child, signing close to the child to
maximize visual attention, and signing on the child's body –
of baby talk/motherese in Ban Khor Sign Language.
(1) Transcript excerpt. Participants:
Watermelon,36
This child has two names,
both of which relate to watermelon. Her Thai name is Jintala, which is
a particular variety of the fruit. The child's name sign in Ban
Khor Sign Language is also ‘Watermelon’. Hence, I refer to
her here by that name.
2 months old; Lahsee, the mother who is
holding the infant; Mrs. Vien, a hearing woman who is a neighbor and a
distant relative; Mr. Phaiwan, a deaf man who also is a neighbor and a
distant relative.
As indicated in Line 1 and depicted in Figure
13, Mrs. Vien exhibits classic paralinguistic features of baby
talk/motherese in Ban Khor Sign. Throughout her interaction with
the child, Mrs. Vien demonstrates heightened affect: lots of smiling,
highly raised eyebrows and widely opened eyes. She also incorporates
lots of active physical stimulation of the child – rubbing the
baby's face, stroking her nose, and playfully slapping her
hands.
Characteristic features of baby talk/motherese in Ban Khor Sign
Language, heightened affect and active physical stimulation of the
child.
Characteristic features of baby talk/motherese in Ban Khor Sign
Language, signing close to the child to maximize visual
attention.
Characteristic features of baby talk/motherese in Ban Khor Sign
Language, signing on the child's body.
Mr. Phaiwan's talk too is classic baby talk/motherese. His
initial child-directed utterances (lines 1–2) are made while
bending directly over Watermelon. The signs ‘you
little-birdie’ and ‘feed you’ (Figure 14) are articulated very close to the
infant's face, maximizing visual acuity. Furthermore, the entire
sequence, especially ‘feed you’, is signed more slowly than
in normal adult conversation.
In line 4, Mr. Phaiwan tells the baby, who was born prematurely, that
as a result of being fed, ‘Your tummy will get big’, and
‘That's good!’. While signing ‘tummy get
big’, (Figure 15) he actually starts
the utterance ‘tummy get big’ by touching his hand to the
girl's abdomen. Signing on an interlocutor's body is rarely
used between adults for purposes of normal, everyday conversation, but
the strategy is a classic feature of signed baby
talk/motherese.37
I have not
researched the matter of signing on an interlocutor's body in the
context of adult-adult conversation, but anecdotal evidence based on
conversations with Deaf friends suggests that signing on the body might
be common in “pillow talk” among signing adults.
Finally, repetition, a typical feature of both signed and spoken baby
talk/motherese, is apparent in line 6, in Phaiwan's repeated
non-manual head nod, ‘yeah, yeah, yeah’.
Interestingly, the characteristic features of baby talk/motherese
in Ban Khor Sign Language also are found in ASL (Erting et al. 1990:105). Given the very different
socioeconomic, historical, and cultural contexts in which Ban Khor Sign
Language, an indigenous sign language, and ASL, a national sign
language, developed, documentation and analysis of the baby
talk/motherese registers in the two languages offer a rich
opportunity not only for original description but also for
cross-linguistic comparison. Moreover, original linguistic description
and cross-linguistic comparison might well allow for broader theorizing
about universal linguistic features of baby talk/motherese in
signed languages and, by extension, in human language generally. As a
working hypothesis: The defining features of baby talk/motherese in
Ban Khor Sign Language will resemble those of all other human languages
in form (phonological, syntactic, lexical, etc.) and function (language
acquisition and enculturation), differing only in terms of modality
(expression through the manual-visual channel).38
Channel/modality allows for one feature –
signing on the child's body – of baby talk/motherese in
manual-visual languages that is not found in spoken
languages.
CONCLUSION
To conclude, using Thailand as a case study, this article has argued
the importance of remembering to include sign languages in discussions
of linguistic diversity and language endangerment as well as in
language preservation efforts. At present, we do not know exactly how
many sign languages there are in Thailand. As a consequence, our
understanding of the country's language ecology is limited and
incomplete. There is documented evidence of at least seven signed codes
that are of three general types: national, indigenous, and original
language varieties. The national sign language, TSL, is used widely
throughout Thailand and appears to be thriving. The continued existence
of indigenous (e.g., Ban Khor) and original (e.g., Old Bangkok and Old
Chiangmai) sign languages, on the other hand, is uncertain.
As little as we know about manual-visual codes in Thailand, it is
still far more than is known about sign languages, especially
indigenous and original varieties, in most other areas of the world.
Historical particularities – the belated recognition of sign
languages as languages and Deaf people as linguistic minorities –
have resulted in severe underdocumentation and underdescription of
codes expressed in the manual-visual channel. Sign languages are
threatened for the same complex reasons (demographic, political,
economic, social, educational, etc.) as are many spoken languages.
However, sign languages and the speech communities associated with them
are also needlessly threatened owing to benign neglect – the
continued failure to remember to include them in linguistic
documentation, preservation, and revitalization efforts.
As we have seen, study of sign languages enriches our collective
knowledge of linguistics and anthropology, underscoring the true
linguistic (signed as well as spoken) and cultural (Deaf as well as
hearing) diversity in the world today. As with spoken languages, it is
often the most powerless, underdescribed sign language isolates (e.g.,
indigenous sign languages) or marginalized, moribund language varieties
(e.g., original sign languages) that preserve unique or less common
linguistic features, reflect the true linguistic diversity associated
with natural human sign languages, and thereby enrich our understanding
of universal grammar and linguistic typology.
“What is needed at this point is a large-scale, in-depth
sociolinguistic study” of the world's sign languages (Woodward 2000:34). Yet unless such research is
undertaken soon, many signed codes, both known and presently unknown,
are in danger of extinction within a generation or two. Unfortunately,
many sign languages are dying out or are on the verge of disappearing
without ever being recorded or described – a fact that
underscores the urgency of remembering these forgotten endangered
languages.
