MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156186278

Exploring the Ancestral Roots of American Sign Language: Lexical Borrowing from Cistercian Sign Language and French Sign Language.

2010· dissertation· en· W2156186278 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Keith M. Cagle

Bibliographic record

VenueUNM’s Digital Repository (University of New Mexico) · 2010
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHearing Impairment and Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSign (mathematics)LinguisticsSign languageAmerican Sign LanguagePhilosophyMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

American Sign Language (ASL) is the natural and preferred language of the Deaf community in both the United States and Canada. Woodward (1978) estimated that approximately 60% of the ASL lexicon is derived from early 19th century French Sign Language, which is known as langue des signes française (LSF). The lexicon of LSF and ASL may be derived from several sources such as gestures, home signs created by deaf individuals living with their hearing families, North American Indian sign languages, Martha Vineyard sign language, and new signs added to LSF and ASL through the generations. Before the emergence of LSF in the 18th century and ASL in the 19th century, Cistercian Sign Language (CSL) had been used extensively by monks for centuries in Europe. This dissertation explores the plausible roots of ASL prior to LSF. These ancestral roots were researched: (A) to determine, from a limited corpus of CSL, if similar phonologically and semantically related lexical items are found in LSF and ASL; (B) to determine if any of the CSL, LSF and ASL phonologically and semantically related lexical items are related simply because they are iconic forms; and (C) to determine if any of the CSL, LSF and ASL phonologically and semantically related lexical items are initialized. Analysis of the data revealed that there are numerous identical and similar signs between CSL and Early LSF, and among CSL, LSF, and ASL, indicating that lexical borrowing from CSL was a factor in the development of LSF and ASL. There is a strong likelihood that iconicity accounts for many of the identical and similar lexical signs that are shared among these three signed languages. There is limited evidence of the employment of initialization in the lexical borrowing that took place from CSL to LSF, and then to ASL. This analysis of lexical borrowing provides new information about the historical roots of LSF and ASL and their origins in CSL. Information about the development of ASL, and how CSL and LSF have had an impact on the present-day ASL lexicon, is a significant aspect of ASL literature and is important to include in Deaf Studies and ASL teaching curricula.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUNM’s Digital Repository (University of New Mexico)Same topicHearing Impairment and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207