Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32218940›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2020

Evolutionary dynamics in the dispersal of sign languages.

Justin M Power, Guido W Grimm, Johann-Mattis List

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Fingerspelling as a pathway to deaf children's reading: a scoping review.Journal of deaf studies and deaf education · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. How the hand has shaped sign languages.Scientific reports · 2022
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. The geography and development of language isolates.Royal Society open science · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Justin M PowerDepartment of Linguistics, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5695-5357
Guido W GrimmIndependent researcher, Orléans, France.ORCID 0000-0003-0674-3553
Johann-Mattis ListDepartment of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2133-8919

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The evolution of spoken languages has been studied since the mid-nineteenth century using traditional historical comparative methods and, more recently, computational phylogenetic methods. By contrast, evolutionary processes resulting in the diversity of contemporary sign languages (SLs) have received much less attention, and scholars have been largely unsuccessful in grouping SLs into monophyletic language families using traditional methods. To date, no published studies have attempted to use language data to infer relationships among SLs on a large scale. Here, we report the results of a phylogenetic analysis of 40 contemporary and 36 historical SL manual alphabets coded for morphological similarity. Our results support grouping SLs in the sample into six main European lineages, with three larger groups of Austrian, British and French origin, as well as three smaller groups centring around Russian, Spanish and Swedish. The British and Swedish lineages support current knowledge of relationships among SLs based on extra-linguistic historical sources. With respect to other lineages, our results diverge from current hypotheses by indicating (i) independent evolution of Austrian, French and Spanish from Spanish sources; (ii) an internal Danish subgroup within the Austrian lineage; and (iii) evolution of Russian from Austrian sources.

Indexed as

language evolutionlanguage phylogenyphylogenetic networkssign language

Identifiers

PMID32218940
PMCPMC7029929

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.