Lumping and splitting: Sign language delineation and ideologies of linguistic differentiation

Abstract

The terms 'lumper' and 'splitter' have long been used to describe opposing approaches to taxonomy in various fields, such as ethnobiology: on encountering a set of closely related species, splitters name a greater number of distinctions in the set than lumpers (Berlin et al., 1981). Linguists use these terms to describe contrasting tendencies among those documenting and delineating languages (Heine & Nurse, 2000, p. 3): the splitter typically regards varieties as distinct languages, while the lumper tends to treat those varieties as, for example, dialects of the same language.But splitting and lumping are tendencies that lie on the surface and refer to deeper, underlying issues. As with spoken languages, the discourse on delineating and naming signed languages is flavoured by a fundamental quandary: multiple types of linguistic evidence provide few definitive or 'objective' answers to thorny questions about where one language finishes and another one starts, which are often informed by language ideologies and settled in sociopolitical contexts. Such questions are confounded by the ongoing lack of available definitions around terms as basic and fundamental as 'language' (Cysouw & Good, 2013).Attempts to understand the relationships between sign language varieties have focussed mostly on lexical comparison (e.g.

An analysis of how metalinguistic terms are realised in British sign language in the context of teaching English to deaf learners

“…Palfreyman and Schembri (2021) explain that Johnston (2003) introduced BANSZL as an additional term, rather than one to replace BSL, Auslan and NZSL, to discuss the shared features of these three related varieties. Some academics are now distancing themselves from the idea of BANSZL however, and as Palfreyman and Schembri (2021) explain, it is felt that the term emphasises similarities and plays down some important differences which in turn diminishes the "unique history and complexity of each variety (p. 4)".…”

“…What we can take from this is that the notion of whether or not a variety constitutes a dialect or a language is complex and sensitive and inextricably entwined with issues of identity and affiliation to a certain community or nation. Palfreyman and Schembri (2021) explain that "the discourse on delineating and naming sign languages is favoured by a fundamental quandary: multiple types of linguistic evidence provide few definitive or 'objective' answers to thorny questions about where one language finishes and another one starts, which are often informed by language ideologies and settled in socio-political contexts" (p. 1). Palfreyman and Schembri (2021) add that definitions as fundamental as what constitutes "language" add to the complexity of this issue.…”

“…A vowel contrast such as that with "cat" and "caught" is phonemic however and 2 The designers of the BSL SignBank made a deliberate decision not to incorporate mouthing. The rationale for this was because they wanted to enter the signs with all of their different meanings without the mouthing reflecting any specific meaning (Fenlon et al, 2015;Schembri, 2021). 3 The BSL SignBank is a lexical database designed by UCL for research purposes and also serves as an online dictionary.…”