Kinship terms in Finnish Sign Language
Every human language and culture has ways to express family relations; the terms by
which it is done vary from language to language and from culture to culture. In
spoken languages kinship terminology has often been studied (e.g. Wallace and
Atkins 1960, Shusky 1965, Greenberg 1990), but in sign languages few studies are
found in the literature (Peng 1974, Woodward 1978, Massone & Johnson 1991,
Wilkinson 2009, Geer 2011). Sign languages are minority languages that are in
contact with the majority languages spoken in their countries. Some studies have
shown similarities in the categorisation of kinship terms between sign languages and
the majority languages with which these sign languages are in contact. In addition,
some interesting structural features have been shown, for example, in Japanese sign
language the fingers of the hand are used in a culturally typical order to express
family relations.
This paper deals with kinship terms in Finnish sign language (FinSL) and is a
part of a typological research. The research questions are: 1) How does FinSL
categorise kinship terms? 2) Are the kinship terms semantically related to Finnish? 3)
Are there formal or semantic similarities in kinship terms between Swedish sign
language (SSL) and FinSL?
The FinSL data have been gathered by video recording dialogues between
native signers using material to elicit signs that refer to family relations. Comparative
data are gathered from dictionaries and interviewing native speakers of Finnish and
SLL.
Terms for both core family members and non-core family members are
analysed in FinSL. There is a gender distinction in some signs referring to core-family
terms (MOTHER/FATHER, DAUGHTER/SON). In addition, there are also nongendered signs (FATHER^MOTHER for ’parents’, SIBLING, OFFSPRING, SPOUSE).
Structurally the terms can vary: those already mentioned are mostly individual signs,
but there are also terms which are compounds (made up of two signs which undergo
phonological processes) e.g. FEMALE^OFFSPRING for ’daughter’, FEMALE^SIBLING
for ’sister’ / MALE^SIBLING for ’brother’, FATHER^MOTHER, MALE^SPOUSE for
’husband’ and FEMALE^SPOUSE for wife.
Non-core family members can be either individual signs
(GRANDFATHER/GRANDMOTHER, AUNT, UNCLE, COUSIN, FIANCÉ) or compounds
(GRANDCHILD, FEMALE-FIANCÉ). The term GRANDPARENTS is composed of one
single sign and a compound. The sign for ‘grandchild’ has the repetitive form
CHILD_CHILD, in which the locations of the repeated forms follow the same time-line
as the sign for ‘generation’.
In FinSL there are single signs for some of the members of blended families
(formed through marriage), such as APPI/ANOPPI for ’father-in-law’ and ’mother-inlaw’. Such family relations as step-mother, step-father, step-daughter and step-son
are expressed as compounds, HALF-MOTHER, HALF-FATHER, HALF-DAUGHTER,
HALF-SON.
The paper will discuss in more datail the structural features of kinship terms
and their semantic relationship to Finnish, the majority language with which FinSL is
in contact. Some similarities are seen in the categorisation of kinship terms in these
language, but these are in some respects different from for example English kinship
categorisation. FinSL is related to SSL, and therefore the formal and semantic
connections between them will also be discussed.
References
Geer, L. (2011) Kinship in Mongolian sign language. Sign Language Studies 11, 2011:
594605.
Greenberg, J. (1990) Universals of kinship terminology: Their nature and the problem
of their explanation. In K. Kenning & S. Kemmer (eds.) On language: Selected
writings of Joseph Greenberg. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 310-327.
Massone, M. I. & Johnson, R. E. (1991) Kinship terms in Argentine sign language. Sign
Language Studies 73, 1991: 347360.
Peng, F. C. C. (1974) Kinship signs in Japanese sign language. Sign Language Studies
5, 1974: 3147.
Shusky, E. L. (1965) Manual for kinship analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.
Wallace, A. F. C. & Atkins, J. (1960) The meaning of kinship terms. American
Anthropologist 62: 5780.
Wilkinson, E. L. (2009) Typology of signed languages: Differentiation through kinship
terminology. Ph.D. diss., University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
Woodward, J. C. (1978) All in the family: Kinship lexicalization across sign languages.
Sign Language Studies 19, 1978: 121138.