Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A preliminary study of the characteristics of style-switching in American sign language as a function… Glazer, Susan Merryl 1982

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1982_A6_7 G42.pdf [ 4.5MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095320.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095320-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095320-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095320-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095320-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095320-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095320-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095320-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095320.ris

Full Text

A PRELIMINARY  STUDY OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF  STYLE-SWITCHING  IN AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE AS  A FUNCTION OF PARTICIPANTS by SUSAN MERRYL GLAZER B.A. McGILL UNIVERSITY 1978  A THESIS SUBMITTED  IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF  THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF SCIENCE in THE SCHOOL OF AUDIOLOGY AND SPEECH SCIENCES  WE ACCEPT THIS THESIS AS CONFORMING TO THE REQUIRED STANDARD  CAROLYN JOHNSON  BRYAN CLARKE  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA MAY  (c)  1982  Susan M e r r y l G l a z e r , 1982  In  presenting  requirements of  B r i t i s h  i t  freely  agree for  this for  an  available  that  I  understood  that  f i n a n c i a l  by  his  or  DE-6  (3/81)  the  the  University  Library  s h a l l  reference  and  study.  I  extensive be  her or  s h a l l  B r i t i s h  copying  granted  by  the  of  publication  not  be  allowed  Columbia  of  make  further this  head  representatives.  permission.  The U n i v e r s i t y o f 1956 M a i n M a l l Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3  at  of  the  may  copying  gain  degree  fulfilment  that  for  purposes  or  p a r t i a l  agree  for  permission  scholarly  in  advanced  Columbia,  department  for  thesis  It  this  without  thesis  of  my  is thesis my  written  ABSTRACT  T h i s study was  designed to i s o l a t e and d e s c r i b e the f e a t u r e s of  American Sign Language (ASL) t h a t vary a c c o r d i n g to s o c i a l parameters. Two  assumptions u n d e r l i e t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n :  ASL i s a n a t u r a l  language  of the w o r l d , and u s e r s of languages of the world demonstrate i n s t y l e which i s t r i g g e r e d by s p e c i f i c s o c i a l f a c t o r s .  variation  The study  examined and compared l i n g u i s t i c and p a r a l i n g u i s t i c f e a t u r e s of a n a t i v e ASL u s e r ' s s i g n i n g under d i f f e r e n t  social  S i x people took p a r t i n the study. Sender was  conditions.  The p r i n c i p a l s u b j e c t or  a p r o f o u n d l y deaf, n a t i v e s i g n e r of ASL.  a c t e d as R e c e i v e r s .  F i v e o t h e r people  They were a l l u s e r s of ASL and d i f f e r e d  Sender i n one or s e v e r a l of the s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s :  from the  age, o c c u p a t i o n and  p r o f i c i e n c y i n ASL. The Sender signed seven t a s k s to each R e c e i v e r s e p a r a t e l y .  The  t a s k s i n c l u d e d i n s t r u c t i o n s , paraphrase, d i r e c t i o n s f o r c o m p l e t i o n of a p u z z l e and q u e s t i o n s . recording studio.  Each Sender-Receiver dyad was  Data was  videotaped i n a  t r a n s c r i b e d and a n a l y z e d f o r evidence of  seven performance parameters i n c l u d i n g l e x i c o n , morphology, syntax, r a t e , h e a d t i l t , body movement and a m p l i t u d e .  I t was  predicted  that  each of the s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s would c o n t r i b u t e to a unique R e c e i v e r p r o f i l e based on amount of use of each performance  parameter.  The r e s u l t s of t h i s study show t h a t the Sender m o d i f i e d h i s s i g n i n g of each t a s k to each R e c e i v e r .  The m o d i f i c a t i o n s were not as  s y s t e m a t i c on the b a s i s of s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s as p r e d i c t e d .  Comparison  of R e c e i v e r p r o f i l e s r e v e a l s two s t y l e s of s i g n i n g , d i s t i n c t third neutral style.  The Sender's s i g n i n g to a c h i l d , who  from a  ranked lower  than h i m s e l f i n terms of age, o c c u p a t i o n and s i g n i n g p r o f i c i e n c y  was  c h a r a c t e r i z e d by redundancy of the message and r e l i a n c e on parameters t h a t augmented c l a r i t y .  The second d i s t i n c t  performance to an a d u l t , who  s t y l e seen i n the Sender's  ranked h i g h e r than h i m s e l f on a l l ii  three  s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s , was  marked by i n c r e a s e d  complexity.  Comparison of tasks r e v e a l e d a marked d i s t i n c t i o n between the I n s t r u c t i o n s and  the Paraphrase t a s k s , thereby  f o r an i n f o r m a t i o n - g i v i n g s t y l e and T h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n was about what changes occur i n ASL  establishing a  a story-telling  profile  style.  a b l e to f u r n i s h p r e l i m i n a r y i n f o r m a t i o n given d i f f e r e n t  t a s k s and  different  participants.  C a r o l y n Johnson  iii  TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT  i i  LIST OF TABLES  v  LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS  vi  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  v i i  Chapter 1. LITERATURE REVIEW AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM  1  Introduction American Sign Language as a N a t u r a l Language A S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c View of Language A S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c View of ASL 2.  METHOD  31 S e l e c t i o n of the P a r t i c i p a n t s S e l e c t i o n of the Tasks C o l l e c t i o n of the Data T r a n s c r i p t i o n of the Data A n a l y s i s of the Data Hypotheses  3.  RESULTS AND DISCUSSION  39  Introduction Performance Parameters Summary of R e c e i v e r - r e l a t e d Signing V a r i a t i o n Summary of T a s k - r e l a t e d S i g n i n g Variation 4.  CONCLUSIONS  58  APPENDIX A  60  APPENDIX B  61  APPENDIX C  62  BIBLIOGRAPHY  65  iv  LIST OF TABLES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.  T o t a l Number of Signs (Tokens) Used by Sender to Each R e c e i v e r i n Each Task Sender's Type:Token R a t i o t o Each R e c e i v e r i n Each Task P r o p o r t i o n of I n c o r p o r a t i o n s to T o t a l Signs Used by Sender w i t h Each R e c e i v e r i n Each Task P r o p o r t i o n of Reduced Forms t o T o t a l Signs Used by Sender w i t h Each R e c e i v e r i n Each Task P r o p o r t i o n of I n d e x i c a l References t o T o t a l Signs Used by Sender w i t h Each R e c e i v e r i n Each Task T o t a l Number of U t t e r a n c e s Signed by Sender t o Each R e c e i v e r i n Each Task Number of P r o p o s i t i o n s Per U t t e r a n c e Signed by Sender to Each R e c e i v e r i n Each Task Number of Signs Per P r o p o s i t i o n Signed by Sender t o Each R e c e i v e r i n Each Task P r o p o r t i o n of Unique t o T o t a l Propositions Number of R e p e t i t i o n s per U t t e r a n c e Rate of S i g n i n g i n Number of Signs per Second ( I n c l u d i n g Pauses) Rate of S i g n i n g i n Number of Signs per Second (Not I n c l u d i n g Pauses) Number of Forward and Backward H e a d t i l t s per P r o p o s i t i o n Number of L e f t and Right H e a d t i l t s per P r o p o s i t i o n Number of Shoulder R a i s e s per Proposition Number of Body Turns per P r o p o s i t i o n Number of Changes i n Body I n c l i n a t i o n per P r o p o s i t i o n Number of S p a t i a l E x t e n s i o n s per Proposition  v  40 41 42 43 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 49 51 51 52 52 53 54  LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. The S i g n f o r 'Tree' i n (a) American Sign Language; (b) Danish S i g n Language; and ( c ) Chinese S i g n Language 2. O r i e n t a t i o n of the Hands D i s t i n g u i s h e s Between Two Signs Which a r e I d e n t i c a l i n A l l Other Respects 3. How F a c i a l E x p r e s s i o n Assumes a S y n t a c t i c F u n c t i o n i n ASL 4. Ranking of the S i x P a r t i c i p a n t s i n Terms of Age, Occupation and Command of ASL 5. Ranking of R e c e i v e r s , From High t o Low, on the B a s i s of Number of P r o p o s i t i o n s Per Utterance i n Each Table  vi  3  8 15 32  45  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I want to acknowledge my s i n c e r e a p p r e c i a t i o n t o a l l those who contributed  t o the p r e p a r a t i o n and completion of t h i s work.  Dr.  Johnson and Dr. Bryan C l a r k e  Carolyn  guidance and t i m e l y a d v i c e .  Bunny Munch who was i n s t r u m e n t a l  and  I express g r a t i t u d e f o r  To Dr. John G i l b e r t and Dr. A n d r e - P i e r r e  Benguerel I am t h a n k f u l f o r continued  wish t o thank Dr. G. R i c h a r d  To  encouragement.  S p e c i a l thanks to  i n t r a n s c r i p t i o n of the d a t a .  Tucker, Dr. Wallace Lambert,  I also  B r i a n McMahon  a l l i n d i v i d u a l s who took p a r t i n the study.  S.M.G. 1982  vii  CHAPTER 1 LITERATIVE REVIEW AND  STATEMENT OF  THE  PROBLEM  Introduction S o c i o l i n g u i s t s have shown t h a t competent users of  language  e x h i b i t l i n g u i s t i c v a r i a t i o n which i s s y s t e m a t i c a l l y r e l a t e d to dimensions of the s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n i n which the speech event T h i s phenomenon, i d e n t i f i e d now  as s t y l e - s w i t c h i n g , has  occurs.  been confirmed  i n many of the n a t u r a l languages of the world, i n c l u d i n g E n g l i s h , Japanese, H i n d i and  others.  Although there has  been some d i s c u s s i o n  about s t y l e - s w i t c h i n g i n American Sign Language (ASL), attempted to i d e n t i f y the f e a t u r e s v a r i a t i o n within a given current  of ASL  t h a t undergo  social situation.  The  t h a t vary a c c o r d i n g  (b)  systematic  describe  to s o c i a l parameters.  assumptions u n d e r l i e t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n : of the world, and  s t u d i e s have  t h e s i s developed i n the  study i s that i t i s p o s s i b l e to i s o l a t e and  f e a t u r e s of ASL  few  (a)  ASL  the Two  i s a n a t u r a l language  u s e r s of languages of the world demonstrate  v a r i a t i o n i n s t y l e which i s t r i g g e r e d by s p e c i f i c s o c i a l f a c t o r s .  American Sign Language as a N a t u r a l The  view t h a t ASL  i s a n a t u r a l language of the world has  w i d e l y accepted o n l y r e c e n t l y . considered  Language  P r i o r to the middle 1960's, ASL  a l o o s e l y connected a r r a y of pantomimic g e s t u r e s .  appearance of Sign Language S t r u c t u r e  (Stokoe, 1960)  and  the  was The  Dictionary  of American Sign Language (Stokoe, C a s t e r l i n e & Croneberg, 1965) the d e p a r t u r e p o i n t f o r the study of s i g n language. the f i r s t  to r e c o g n i z e  included discussions issues. and  That ASL  marked  These works were  the i n t e r n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n of a s i g n language  of m e t h o d o l o g i c a l ,  s o c i o l o g i c a l and  sceptics I 1  and  linguistic  i s a r u l e - g o v e r n e d l i n g u i s t i c system has  a v a s t amount of i n d i s p u t a b l e evidence to e s t a b l i s h .  still  been  taken years And  there  are  2  Most i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of ASL the f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s : language; and regarding  (and  o t h e r s i g n languages) d e a l  the nature of the i n t e r n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n  what a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n  human l i n g u i s t i c c a p a c i t i e s .  w i l l be p r o v i d e d  of  sign  s i g n language p r o v i d e s  Examination of these  as a b a s i s f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g and  which w i l l be presented  with  issues  i n t e r p r e t i n g the  data  later.  Comparison of Sign Language With Spoken Language Four major b e l i e f s about s i g n language have c o n t r i b u t e d reluctance  to  on the p a r t of o t h e r language communities to accept ASL  n a t u r a l language.  These b e l i e f s , now  " m i s c o n c e p t i o n s " ( B a t t i s o n , 1978;  the as  a  termed "myths" or  S i p l e , 1978), are  r e l a t e d to supposed  (1) u n i v e r s a l i t y of s i g n languages; (2) dependency on spoken languages; (3) i c o n i c i t y and There i s now  t r a n s p a r e n c y ; and  evidence s u f f i c i e n t  (4) r e s t r i c t e d range of  expression.  to d i s p e l these apparent  misconceptions.  Universality One  f a l s e n o t i o n about ASL  i s t h a t there  e x i s t s one  i n t e l l i g i b l e s i g n language f o r a l l deaf communities i n the  mutually world.  There i s ample e v i d e n c e , however, that unique s i g n languages e x i s t i n a number of c o u n t r i e s Despite s i m i l a r i t i e s  such as China, Denmark, H a i t i , (probably  imposed by g e n e r a l  I s r a e l and  Spain.  c o n s t r a i n t s on  signed  l a n g u a g e s ) , d i f f e r e n c e s among these languages are present at many linguistic levels. Examination of s i g n d i c t i o n a r i e s i n d i f f e r e n t c o u n t r i e s t h a t not  shows  a l l s i g n languages denote the same t h i n g s w i t h the same s i g n s .  Woodward (1975, c i t e d i n B a t t i s o n , 1978)  compared 872  American and  found t h a t , f o r these  P a r i s i a n Sign Language.  He  h i s t o r i c a l l y r e l a t e d s i g n languages, o n l y  26.5%  signs  from two  of the s i g n s were  identical. B e l l u g i & Klima (1975) and Chinese Sign Language and  Mayberry (1978) compared ASL  French Canadian S i g n Language, r e s p e c t i v e l y .  Both i n v e s t i g a t i o n s r e p o r t e d  differences i n formational  languages they compared:  s i g n forms not  used i n ASL  other s i g n languages, and  impossible  forms.  the  /F/  hand c o n f i g u r a t i o n  with  ASL  i s made so that the  but  a s p e c t s of present i n  For example, i n thumb and  the the  ASL  index f i n g e r  3  constitute the contact region, as in VOTE, IMPORTANT and FAMILY".  In  Chinese Sign Language, the same pinching handshape is used, but the three extended fingers are the prominent part of the sign, as i n CHOP and QUESTION. Lexical differences also show up i n comparisons between sign languages.  The sign THEE i n ASL, Chinese Sign Language and Danish Sign  Language is different in terms of formational aspects (See Figure 1). It is interesting to note that each of the three signs bears some iconic resemblance to the referent; however, this relationship does not determine the details of formation. i  Figure 1. The sign for 'tree' i n (a) American Sign Language; (b) Danish Sign Language; and (c) Chinese Sign Language (Adapted from \ Klima & Bellugi, 1979:21)  (a)  (b)  (c)  To demonstrate inter-sign language comprehension, Jordan & Battison (1976) asked pairs of fluent signers to describe pictures to one another.  These descriptions were videotaped and presented to  signers who were fluent in the particular sign language and to those who were not.  The receivers, who had to select the target picture,  were more successful when descriptions were presented i n their own language.  sign  The investigators concluded that deaf signers can understand  their own language better than foreign sign language, which would not be the case i f sign languages were mutually i n t e l l i g i b l e . Dependency on spoken languages The second misconception regarding  sign language is that i t has  English glosses for ASL signs are represented in capital letters. See Appendix A for further notational conventions.  4  no s t r u c t u r a l o r g a n i z a t i o n of i t s own,  but i n s t e a d r e f l e c t s a  s i g n - f o r - w o r d manual t r a n s l a t i o n of the l o c a l spoken language. view may  This  have been upheld by the knowledge that i t i s p o s s i b l e to  encode an o r a l language manually through f i n g e r s p e l l i n g . F i n g e r s p e l l i n g , i n ASL, i s a s e t of " d i g i t a l one-to-one  symbols which stand i n  r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the l e t t e r s of the E n g l i s h a l p h a b e t "  (Stokoe, 1960:33).  I t i s used to supplement  l e x i c a l items w i t h  grammatical i n f l e c t i o n s , such as p l u r a l - s , as w e l l as to p r o v i d e E n g l i s h words where no s i g n i s known; names and t e c h n i c a l terms are often fingerspelled. between languages.  F i n g e r s p e l l i n g can be seen as a type of borrowing I t i s not, however, used by any  community as the s o l e means of  linguistic  communication.  Another c o n f u s i o n t h a t has suggested s i g n language dependence on spoken language s t r u c t u r e i s the p o s s i b i l i t y of coding a spoken language manually.  T h i s i s f r e q u e n t l y seen when h e a r i n g people  l e a r n i n g s i g n language base t h e i r e x p r e s s i o n s e x c l u s i v e l y on E n g l i s h syntax.  In a d d i t i o n , s e v e r a l attempts have been made to combine ASL  w i t h the grammar of E n g l i s h .  An example of such a m e t h o d i c a l s i g n i n g  system i s S i g n i n g Exact E n g l i s h (Gustason, P f e t z i n g & Zawolkow, which was  1972)  developed f o r the purpose of d i s p l a y i n g E n g l i s h manually.  has been u s e f u l as an e d u c a t i o n a l supplement  and i n c l u d e s ASL  It  signs  w i t h the a d d i t i o n of a f f i x markers which correspond to E n g l i s h grammatical morphemes.  As w i t h f i n g e r s p e l l i n g , S i g n i n g Exact E n g l i s h  i s not used e x c l u s i v e l y by any deaf community.  I c o n i c i t y and t r a n s p a r e n c y There i s a p o p u l a r b e l i e f  that s i g n s a r e not a r b i t r a r y  symbols,  but i n s t e a d c a r r y an i c o n i c or r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l resemblance to t h e i r referents.  Because of the apparent i c o n i c i t y , ASL's p o t e n t i a l f o r  symbolic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n has f r e q u e n t l y been q u e s t i o n e d . Although the i n e x p e r i e n c e d eye may  view the g e s t u r e s of ASL as  a d i r e c t p h y s i c a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of c e r t a i n l e x i c a l items, d e t a i l e d a n a l y s e s have shown t h i s not to be the c a s e .  S e v e r a l procedures have  been adopted to measure the degree of t r a n s p a r e n c y of ASL  signs.  B e l l u g i & Klima (1976) p r e s e n t e d 90 ASL s i g n s and t h e i r E n g l i s h g l o s s e s to a group of 10 h e a r i n g n o n s i g n e r s and asked them to d e s c r i b e the b a s i s f o r the resemblance between each s i g n and i t s meaning.  Results  5  i n d i c a t e t h a t there was  general  agreement among s u b j e c t s  p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s i g n s and half  the s i g n s .  t h e i r glosses  A second group of 10 h e a r i n g  guess the meanings of the same 90 s i g n s .  as  to  the  f o r more than  nonsigners were asked  In t h i s case,  subjects  determined the c o r r e c t meaning f o r o n l y n i n e of the 90 s i g n s . study r e v e a l e d  t h a t due  to m o d a l i t y of p r o d u c t i o n  amount of i c o n i c i t y i s i n e v i t a b l e , but  t h a t t h i s does not i n t e r f e r e  Mandell (1977) suggested that the i c o n i c d e v i c e s are c o n s t r a i n e d  by r u l e s .  t h a t used i n the s i g n EGG. breaking  language. utilized  by  A good example of an i c o n i c d e v i c e  is  T h i s s i g n i s c l e a r l y r e l a t e d to  open of an e g g s h e l l .  The  r e a l i s t i c a l l y d e p i c t the h o l d i n g  of an egg.  asked 10 n o n s i g n e r s to convey i n g e s t u r e s  that would  not  Klima & B e l l u g i (1979)  the meaning of the word  Although each s u b j e c t gave a s i m i l a r r e n d i t i o n i n terms of p i c k i n g up a s m a l l o v a l o b j e c t , h i t t i n g i t , e t c . — t h e  of the s i g n EGG  the  a c t i o n i s h i g h l y s t y l i z e d , however,  i n t h a t the f i n g e r s of each hand i n t e r a c t i n a way  greatly i n style.  This  of s i g n s , a c e r t a i n  w i t h the p o t e n t i a l f o r a r b i t r a r i n e s s of the s i g n s of the  ASL  egg.  theme—  details varied  Whereas the pantomimes v a r i e d , d i f f e r e n t r e n d i t i o n s  by e x p e r i e n c e d s i g n e r s were very  similar.  Hoemann  (1978) accounts f o r the s i m i l a r i t y a c r o s s  s i g n e r s by s u g g e s t i n g  pantomime i s drama, and  to the set of l o c a t i o n s  i s not  restricted  movements t h a t are the s t r u c t u r a l f e a t u r e s of ASL. ASL  to  well-formedness i n terms of f e a t u r e s  He  that and  b e l i e v e s that i n  i s more important  than  pantomimic e f f e c t i v e n e s s . In analyses evolutionary  of h i s t o r i c a l changes i n ASL,  a l t e r a t i o n s of  'old' signs.  In ASL,  n o t i c e d i n the d i r e c t i o n of i n c r e a s i n g l y a b s t r a c t c o n s t r a i n t s , or a change from i c o n i c i t y B e l l u g i , 1979). the h e a r t centre  researchers  show  changes have been formational  to the more a r b i t r a r y (Klima  For example, s i g n s of the emotions, once l o c a t e d near  (Long, 1918), have moved to the more n e u t r a l l o c a t i o n of  of the c h e s t .  B a t t i s o n (1974) has  i d e n t i c a l i n c o n f i g u r a t i o n and  and  movement.  are c o n s t r a i n e d  i n terms of p l a c e  be of  Symmetry reduces the complexity of the  c r e a t e s more redundancy i n the s i g n a l .  Klima & B e l l u g i (1979), i s i n c r e a s e d  the  observed an h i s t o r i c a l move  toward symmetry, such that i f both hands are a c t i v e , they tend to  a r t i c u l a t i o n and  &  sign  Another change, r e p o r t e d  fluidity  of s i g n s ; t h i s  involves  by  6  reducing  a multipart  s i g n to a s i n g l e s i g n .  composed of KNOW (one-handed) and two  H i s t o r i c a l l y , INFORM  OFFER (two-handed).  Over time  content  A common m i s c o n c e p t i o n about ASL representation complexity.  of c o n c r e t e ideas  Studies  of ASL  and  i s t h a t i t i s l i m i t e d to  l a c k s l e x i c a l and  CARRY depends on what i s being c a r r i e d . t h a t , w i t h i n ASL,  there  l e v e l of a b s t r a c t i o n .  i n fact  For example, the  at  any  There i s v o c a b u l a r y f o r t o p i c s of i n t e r e s t e t h i c s , h i s t o r y and  In a d d i t i o n , o r i g i n a l p l a y s have been composed and  fantasy.  performed e n t i r e l y  (Eastman, 1974). Another i n d i c a t i o n t h a t ASL  i s equipped to handle  concepts i s the occurrence of i n t e n t i o n a l p l a y on s i g n s . meanings i n ASL  i n v o l v e one  s i g n s , the o v e r l a p p i n g feature  of three  of two  f o r a new  processes:  abstract Double  the b l e n d i n g  f o r another i n the s i g n (Klima & B e l l u g i , 1975). was  asked how  he  felt  DEPRESSED.  O r d i n a r i l y , each of the s i g n s  hands moving s y m m e t r i c a l l y .  regular  For  signing  i s made w i t h  two  T h i s s i g n e r made h a l f of each s i g n w i t h  each hand, thereby i n d i c a t i n g h i s The  two  about l e a v i n g town  j o b , he expressed h i s f e e l i n g s by s i m u l t a n e o u s l y  EXCITED and  of  s i g n s , or the s u b s t i t u t i o n of one  example, when a young deaf man  ambivalence.  m i s c o n c e p t i o n s which a l l u d e to s i g n languages being  i n t r i n s i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t from spoken language have been overturned recent  sign  B e l l u g i & Klima (1975) p o i n t  i s the p o s s i b i l i t y f o r e x p r e s s i o n  i n c l u d i n g a s p e c t s of r e l i g i o n , p o l i t i c s ,  i n ASL  the  grammatical  have shown t h a t some s i g n s are  dependent on context f o r c o r r e c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .  ASL  the  p a r t s have blended to form a smooth s i n g l e s i g n .  Restricted  out  was  research.  Numerous s t u d i e s c l e a r l y demonstrate t h a t  d i s p l a y s the same communicative f u n c t i o n s ,  d i f f e r e n c e s i n m o d a l i t y of p e r c e p t i o n  and  production,  o t h e r s i g n languages have some s p e c i a l f e a t u r e s spoken languages. 2 w i l l turn .  ASL  internal structure  c o m p l e x i t y found i n n a t u r a l languages of the w o r l d .  by  and  Owing to however, ASL  and  which are absent i n  I t i s to these unique f e a t u r e s  that the  While they are unique to s i g n language, these f e a t u r e s analogues i n the v a r i o u s a n a l y t i c l e v e l s of language.  discussion  have  7  L i n g u i s t i c D e s c r i p t i o n of ASL For a thorough d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e s t r u c t u r a l and grammatical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of ASL, the reader i s r e f e r r e d to works by Stokoe (1978), K l i m a & B e l l u g i (1979) and Wilbur (1979).  For purposes of t h i s  r e p o r t , s e v e r a l a s p e c t s of ASL t h a t a r e d i r e c t l y r e l e v a n t to the understanding of the c u r r e n t features  include  study w i l l be reviewed.  (1) p h y s i c a l f o r m a t i o n of s i g n s  (3) morphology, (4) d e f i n i t i o n of a signed  Physical  These  i n ASL, (2) l e x i c o n ,  utterance,  (5) syntax, (6)  nonsign channels of ASL, (7) r a t e of s i g n i n g , (8) s i g n i n g (9) d i s c o u r s e  and important  space, and  i n ASL.  formation Stokoe (1960) put f o r t h the f i r s t  f o r which he coined  the term " c h e r o l o g y . "  s t r u c t u r a l d e s c r i p t i o n of ASL H i s u n i t s of a n a l y s i s have  been used i n most r e s e a r c h  i n the f i e l d .  three k i n d s of i n f o r m a t i o n  about simultaneous events t o s p e c i f y any  given  He p o s i t e d  s i g n and to d i s t i n g u i s h i t from other s i g n s .  described  The a s p e c t s he  a r e (1) l o c a t i o n of the s i g n i n r e l a t i o n to the body, c a l l e d  ' t a b u l a ' o r 'tab'; hands i n v o l v e d  ( 2 ) t h e handshape o r c o n f i g u r a t i o n of one o r both  i n the s i g n , termed  'designator'  o r 'dez'; and (3) t h e  movement of t h e hands, c a l l e d ' s i g n a t i o n ' o r ' s i g . ' which a r e d i s c u s s e d acts  that ASL r e q u i r e s  These  more f u l l y i n Stokoe's r e v i s e d work r e f l e c t what  ( d e z ) , i t s a c t i o n ( s i g ) and the l o c a t i o n of the a c t i o n  (Stokoe, 1978).  Motivation  from the n e c e s s i t y  aspects,  f o r t h i s more g e n e r a l  of r e c o g n i z i n g  (tab)  terminology arose  the i n t e r r e l a t e d n e s s  of the  simultaneous e v e n t s . D e s c r i p t i o n of what a c t s r e v e a l s the hand or hands.  Stokoe d e s c r i b e d  the a c t u a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n of  19 d i f f e r e n t handshapes, which  correspond to the l e t t e r s and numbers of the manual r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of English.  For example, i n the /C/ handshape the hand assumes the shape  of g r a s p i n g  a b a l l , and the /¥/ hand i s made by c o n t a c t  the thumb and index f i n g e r , w i t h the other three The described  of the t i p s of  f i n g e r s extended.  a c t i o n of the hand i n t h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a l space can be  i n terms of v e r t i c a l , h o r i z o n t a l and c i r c u l a r motions.  Stokoe o u t l i n e d 24 d i s t i n c t movements, i n c l u d i n g motion toward the s i g n e r , as i n BORROW, RECEIVE and ME; motion up and down, as i n YES and JUDGE; and c i r c u l a r motion as i n FAMILY, COOPERATIVE and SUNDAY.  8  Twelve locations of the hand's action were described.  Examples  of these locations are the lower face, as seen in the signs SOUR and GIRL, and the top of the shoulders, seen i n ANGEL. With these three aspects explicity described and with a corresponding notational system, Stokoe was able to adequately the essence of the signs of ASL.  capture  Battison (cited in Stokoe, Casterline  & Croneberg, 1965) added a fourth piece of information, referred to as 'orientation', which describes the spatial orientation of the hands i n relation to each other or the body.  Orientation can be used to  distinguish between the minimal pairs NAME, and SIT/CHAIR (See Figure 2). Figure 2. Orientation of the hands distinguishes between two signs which are identical i n a l l other respects. (Adapted from Battison 1978:25).  What is important to note from the description of the formational characteristics of ASL i s that the physical representation of each sign i s comprised of discrete and measurable units. These units are roughly comparable to phonetic features of place and manner of articulation i n vocal language.  Note that this i s a powerful  argument against the notion that signs are iconic. Lexicon Rule governed combinations of the four simultaneous aspects of signs result in the hundreds of signs found i n ASL dictionaries. Comparison of signs that differ with respect to only one of these formational aspects (the 'minimal pairs' of traditional linguistic  9  a n a l y s i s ) has  revealed  f a m i l i e s of s i g n s  s i m i l a r i t i e s i n the remaining a s p e c t s .  that are r e l a t e d by For example, F r i s h b e r g & Gough  ( c i t e d i n W i l b u r , 1979)  show how  d i r e c t i o n of movement.  Examples of o p p o s i t e  DISAPPEAR, IMPROVE/GET WORSE.  c e r t a i n s i g n s are i d e n t i c a l except f o r p a i r s i n c l u d e APPEAR/  Another f a m i l y i s r e l a t e d by handshape,  f o r i n s t a n c e , EXCITE, DEPRESS, FEEL, LIKE, TOUCH. i s another f e a t u r e t h a t binds c e r t a i n s i g n s .  Location  of the  For example, BOY,  sign  MAN  BROTHER are a r t i c u l a t e d a t the f o r e h e a d , w h i l e GIRL, WOMAN and  and  SISTER  are produced on the lower cheek. The  listing  of commonly used s i g n s i n ASL  the s e t of s i g n s i s a c l o s e d one. arises.  New  For example, i n i t i a l i z e d  does not  signs  (which r e f e l c t a type of  the hand c o n f i g u r a t i o n .  o f f e r the example of the new  the f i r s t  letter  s i g n MODULATION which was  o r i g i n a l /A/  handshape f o r MODULATION was  of  Klima & B e l l u g i (1979) formed  by  r e t a i n i n g a l l the a s p e c t s of the s i g n CHANGE w i t h the e x c e p t i o n handshape; /M/  that  s i g n s are added as the need  borrowing from E n g l i s h ) are formed by r e p r e s e n t i n g the E n g l i s h word as  imply  substituted for  of  the  the  shape i n CHANGE.  It i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that s i g n s i n ASL  do not  correspond to words i n E n g l i s h on a one-to-one b a s i s . sometimes r e q u i r e more than one  always  Signs i n  E n g l i s h word to i n d i c a t e the  ASL  referent.  For example, the meaning of the combined E n g l i s h words 'look a t ' i s expressed by a s i n g l e s i g n i n ASL.  S i m i l a r l y , when the s i g n f o r 'walk'  i s accompanied by an upward d i r e c t i o n , the t r a n s l a t i o n of the s i n g l e s i g n WALK-UP r e q u i r e s two  E n g l i s h words.  words are t r a n s l a t e d by more than one  C o n v e r s e l y , some E n g l i s h  s i g n , as i n the compound  BLUE~SPOT, meaning ' b r u i s e ' or FACE""STR0NG meaning  'resemble'.  Morphology Wilbur (1979) d i s c u s s e s ASL,  the m o r p h o l o g i c a l processes found i n  w i t h the addendum t h a t d i s t i n c t i o n between i n f l e c t i o n a l morphology  (where markers are added to the b a s i c s i g n ) and (where the b a s i c s i g n i s m o d i f i e d to determine c l e a r l y .  d e r i v a t i o n a l morphology  i n some r e g u l a r manner) i s d i f f i c u l t  For t h i s reason no attempt w i l l be made here to  s e p a r a t e these types of m o r p h o l o g i c a l D i r e c t i o n a l i t y i s an ASL  processes.  m o r p h o l o g i c a l d e v i c e whereby  the  10 meaning of a p r o p o s i t i o n may movement.  The  be m o d i f i e d  by a change i n d i r e c t i o n of  d i r e c t i o n a l movement i s along  a h o r i z o n t a l or  vertical  plane from the l o c a t i o n of the source to the l o c a t i o n of the g o a l & Hermann, 1977). and  For example, the v e r b LOOK can be marked f o r agent  b e n e f i c i a r y depending on where, r e l a t i v e  initiated.  the r e c e i v e r means I - l o o k - a t - y o u ' ; s i g n c l o s e to the r e c e i v e r and  moves i t towards h i m s e l f ,  'you-look-at-me.'  s i m i l a r l y are  GIVE.  INFORM and  moves outward  whereas, i f the sender begins  the phrase would then be  Another m o r p h o l o g i c a l p r o c e s s ,  Agent-beneficiary  b e n e f i c i a r y overlap  Other verbs which operate  i n c o r p o r a t i o n i s one  by o v e r l a p p i n g  sign.  Other c a t e g o r i e s  two  s e p a r a t e s i g n s BIG  and  of  and themselves  location.  of s i z e i s seen i n BIG-HOUSE, where the sender  HOUSE w i t h an i n c r e a s e d  into a  or more  that l e n d  to i n c o r p o r a t i o n are s i z e , shape, manner, number and Incorporation  possibility  In the LOOK example, the agent, v e r b i n one  the  a l s o demonstrated i n the  the redundancy of an u t t e r a n c e  semantic c a t e g o r i e s .  signs  d i s p l a c e m e n t of the hands, i n s t e a d of the HOUSE.  An  to  the meaning of  example, i s i n c o r p o r a t i o n , i . e . compacting i n f o r m a t i o n  single sign. reducing  to the sender, the s i g n i s  LOOK which begins c l o s e to the sender and 1  preceding  (Edge  two  example of i n c o r p o r a t i o n f o r shape i s  noted i n the s i g n f o r 'remove' which depends on the p h y s i c a l shape of the o b j e c t , e.g. a box.  a n a i l , a l a r g e p a i n t i n g or a s m a l l o b j e c t  Incorporation  can be signed respectively.  from i n s i d e  of manner can be seen w i t h the verb WALK, which  r a p i d l y or s l o w l y , meaning Incorporation  'walk-fast'  or  'walk-slow'  of number i s p o s s i b l e , where the  nondominant hand takes on the c o n f i g u r a t i o n of the number, as i n TWO-WEEK.  With i n c o r p o r a t i o n of l o c a t i o n , the r e l a t i v e l o c a t i o n of  event can be signed  simultaneously  an  w i t h the noun or verb s i g n , f o r  example WALK-UP. A t h i r d m o r p h o l o g i c a l p r o c e s s i n ASL s i g n i s repeated more than once.  i s r e d u p l i c a t i o n , where a  R e d u p l i c a t i o n marks a s i g n f o r  p l u r a l i t y , i t e r a t i v e or d u r a t i o n a l a s p e c t .  For example, FRIEND FRIEND  FRIEND means 'many f r i e n d s ' ( F i s c h e r , 1973)  and  STAND UNDER TREE means 'the 1978).  s o l d i e r s stand  SOLDIER STAND STAND  under the  t r e e ' (Hoemann,  E i t h e r the noun or c o r r e s p o n d i n g verb s i g n s can assume  marking of p l u r a l i t y .  F r i s h b e r g & Gough ( c i t e d i n W i l b u r ,  the  1979)  11  i d e n t i f i e d r e d u p l i c a t i o n as a process t h a t a f f e c t s time nouns. example, r e p e t i t i o n of the s i g n WEEK w i t h continuous becomes WEEKLY and  s i m i l a r l y MONTH t o MONTHLY.  For  b r u s h i n g motion  Slow r e p e t i t i o n ,  with  added wide c i r c u l a r path i n d i c a t e s d u r a t i o n , so t h a t WEEK becomes ' f o r weeks and weeks.'  F i s c h e r (1973) d i s c u s s e s t h i s d e v i c e as i t a p p l i e s  to s t a t i v e and n o n s t a t i v e v e r b s , to i n d i c a t e a s p e c t .  She  demonstrates  t h a t s t a t i v e v e r b s , such as APPEAR or SEEM, must be repeated whereas a c t i v e verbs DRINK, TALK and WIN quickly.  winning'  can be r e d u p l i c a t e d s l o w l y or  Slow r e d u p l i c a t i o n i s i n t e r p r e t e d  a c t i o n was  repeated over and  over, such as  or t h a t the a c t i o n was  ' t a l k e d f o r a long  quickly,  to mean t h a t e i t h e r 'winning  and winning  the and  continued f o r a long time, as i n ,  time.'  Another m o r p h o l o g i c a l process i n ASL has been r e f e r r e d to as i n d e x i c a l r e f e r e n c e , where a p o i n t i n space sign.  i s e s t a b l i s h e d f o r a noun  Once e s t a b l i s h e d , the s i g n e r can r e c a l l the r e f e r e n t by p o i n t i n g  t o , or g l a n c i n g a t the p r e d e s i g n a t e d spot without sign.  T h i s d e v i c e i s f r e q u e n t l y used  r e p e a t i n g the a c t u a l  to a s s i g n a person to a l o c a t i o n  so as not t o have to repeat t h a t person's  name each time i t comes up i n  conversation. Yet another  process i s r e d u c t i o n i n form.  occurs when f o r m a t i o n of a s i g n i s s i m p l i f i e d c o n f i g u r a t i o n or l o c a t i o n .  form  i n movement,  For example, THINK, which i s u s u a l l y made  w i t h the index f i n g e r t o u c h i n g the temple, produced  A reduced  can i n c o n v e r s a t i o n be  i n a more n e u t r a l l o c a t i o n , s e v e r a l c e n t i m e t e r s from  the  s i g n e r ' s head.  D e f i n i t i o n of an u t t e r a n c e Stokoe,  C a s t e r l i n e & Croneberg  ASL as the s i g n a c t i v i t y  (1965) d e f i n e an u t t e r a n c e i n  ( o r l i n g u i s t i c a l l y meaningful  which occurs between p o s i t i o n s of repose, where repose  body a c t i v i t y ) involves contact  of the hands w i t h each o t h e r , some p a r t of the body, or an a r t i c l e of furniture.  Other  Lane, 1977)  support  p e r i o d of repose  r e s e a r c h e r s ( C o v i n g t o n , 1973a, 1973b; Grosjean & t h i s d e f i n i t i o n and c l a i m t h a t a s p e c t s of the  can be r e v e a l i n g f o r purposes  c o n s t i t u e n t boundaries Covington  of  determining  of s i g n e d d i s c o u r s e .  (1973a, 1973b) i d e n t i f i e s s e v e r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  12  the j u n c t u r e between two pause, the hands may  signed u t t e r a n c e s .  She  s t a t e s that d u r i n g  be h e l d i n the l o c a t i o n of the l a s t  the hand c o n f i g u r a t i o n of the l a s t  sign.  s i g n and/or i n  T h i s type of pause would  i n d i c a t e t h a t the s i g n e r s t i l l has more t o say, and would be short i n duration. hands w i l l f a l l  By c o n t r a s t , at the end  Grosjean i n ASL  the  to the s i g n e r s l a p , s i d e s or p i e c e of f u r n i t u r e ,  and  time.  & Lane (1977) c l a i m t h a t c l o s e examination  experimentally  of an u t t e r a n c e .  that a h e a r i n g nonsigner  and measuring pauses upon repeated s u b j e c t was  time.  of pauses  d i s c o u r s e can h e l p determine the l o c a t i o n of both major  minor c o n s t i t u e n t boundaries  The  relatively  of the c o n v e r s a t i o n ,  remain t h e r e f o r a l o n g e r  Grosjean  the  had  viewing  They demonstrated  no d i f f i c u l t y of v i d e o t a p e d  identifying ASL  i n agreement w i t h the judges approximately & Lane found  and  discourse.  83% of  the  t h a t the l o n g e s t pauses i n a s i g n e d s t o r y  appeared at the boundary between two  u t t e r a n c e s , s h o r t e r pauses  appeared between p a r t s of a c o n j o i n e d  sentence and  appeared between i n t e r n a l c o n s t i t u e n t s or l e x i c a l  the s h o r t e s t pauses items.  Syntax Claims  about s i g n o r d e r i n ASL  have been w i d e l y d i s c r e p a n t .  e a r l y p o s i t i o n h e l d by T e r v o o r t (1968) was  that ASL was  s t r u c t u r e d w i t h g r e a t freedom of word o r d e r . ME  He  An  weakly  took one  sentence,  YOU  DOWNTOWN M-O-V-I-E FUN? ( t r a n s l a t e d as a request t o go downtown to a  movie) and  presented  t e a c h e r s who  i n w r i t t e n form a l l p o s s i b l e permutations to  were asked to judge them i n terms of g r a m m a t i c a l i t y .  none of the premutations was T e r v o o r t as evidence  c o n s i d e r e d ungrammatical was  t h a t word order i s f r e e i n ASL.  taken  secondly,  s i g n e r s to judge these u t t e r a n c e s  the u t t e r a n c e s were taken out of  by  S e v e r a l problems  are apparent which make the r e s u l t s of t h i s study e q u i v o c a l . 3 T e r v o o r t asked non-native  That  Firstly, and  context.  N a t i v e v s . non-native s i g n e r s . Not a l l u s e r s a c q u i r e s i g n language i n the same manner. I t i s necessary i n the study of t h i s language to d i s t i n g u i s h between n a t i v e s i g n e r s , who l e a r n s i g n language as a f i r s t language from f a m i l y members, and non-native u s e r s f o r whom f o r m a l s i g n i n g was not the major means of e a r l y communication. A more complete examination of t h i s i s s u e can be found l a t e r i n t h i s chapter.  13  F i s c h e r (1975) argues that ASL i s b a s i c a l l y a S u b j e c t - V e r b Object (SVO) language, l i k e E n g l i s h , which developed i n t h i s way through the p r e v a i l i n g i n f l u e n c e of the source language.  Fischer  p r e s e n t e d s i g n sequences c o n s i s t i n g of permutations of two nouns and a verb t o n a t i v e  signers.  From the s i g n e r s ' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , she  concluded t h a t ASL i s an u n d e r l y i n g s t a t i n g t h a t "other  orders  SVO language but q u a l i f i e d  t h i s by  a r e a l l o w e d under the c i r c u m s t a n c e s that ( a )  something i s t o p i c a l i z e d , (b) the s u b j e c t and o b j e c t a r e n o n - r e v e r s i b l e and/or ( c ) the s i g n e r used space t o i n d i c a t e grammatical mechanisms" ( F i s c h e r , 1975:21).  A l l o w a b l e d e p a r t u r e from SVO order  can be  s i g n a l l e d by pauses, h e a d t i l t s , r a i s e d eyebrows and other  nonmanual  cues, which F i s c h e r terms ' i n t o n a t i o n breaks.' Friedman (1976) on the o t h e r discourse  samples, found t h a t SVO order was present  frequently.  She c l a i m s  t h a t word order  tendency f o r the v e r b t o be l a s t . order, The  hand, i n her own a n a l y s i s o f but only i n -  i n ASL i s f r e e , but notes a  She argues f o r an u n d e r l y i n g  c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the l a r g e number of OV c o n s t r u c t i o n s  constructions  r e s u l t e d from s u b j e c t  SOV  she found.  deletion.  K e g l (1976) supports F i s c h e r ' s view that ASL i s an u n d e r l y i n g SVO language and p o s t u l a t e s the F l e x i b i l i t y  Condition,  a s o l u t i o n t o the word order  which s t a t e s that the more i n f l e c t e d the  v e r b i s , the f r e e r the word order may be. between v e r b i n f l e c t i o n and word o r d e r , fully  inflected  the s i g n s . rule like  controversy:  In view of t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n  one may f i n d t h a t i f a v e r b i s  f o r s u b j e c t and o b j e c t , s i g n e r s may vary  the order of  In a d d i t i o n , the nonmanual cues may r e f l e c t an o p t i o n a l t o p i c a l i z a t i o n , rather  than a non-SVO o r d e r .  T h i s view i s  c o n s i s t e n t w i t h our knowledge about the r e l a t i o n s between word and  order  degree of i n f l e c t i o n i n v o c a l languages of the w o r l d .  Nonsign channels The  a s p e c t s o f ASL s t r u c t u r e presented so f a r p r i m a r i l y concern  s i g n s made by the u s e r ' s hands. Liddell  (1978) and o t h e r s  f e e l t h a t the hands a r e not the o n l y c a r r i e r s  of l i n g u i s t i c i n f o r m a t i o n . operating  linguistically  head and body p o s t u r e .  Baker (1976), Baker & Padden (1978),  Baker suggests that there a r e f i v e  i n ASL:  channels  the hands, the eyes, the f a c e , the  In other words, i n any u t t e r a n c e ,  these channels  14  f u n c t i o n simultaneously  and  continuously  w i t h a l l the  previously  mentioned f e a t u r e s of ASL  structure.  i n c l u d e , as a f o r m a t i o n a l  f e a t u r e , f a c i a l movements which mark  negatives, a great  i n t e r r o g a t i v e s and  r e l a t i v e clauses.  p o t e n t i a l f o r semantic redundancy.  channels have not methodological and  For example, l e x i c a l items  been e x h a u s t i v e l y  c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , e.g.  Such o v e r l a p  gives  ASL  Except f o r the hands, these  examined due  to c e r t a i n  an adequate t r a n s c r i p t i o n system  segmenting the components i n t o d i s c r e t e elements.  r e l e v a n t to the present  can  However, i t i s  study to o u t l i n e some of the l i n g u i s t i c  and  p a r a l i n g u i s t i c f u n c t i o n s of the f o u r remaining c h a n n e l s . The i n an ASL  eyes.  Baker (1976) suggests s e v e r a l f u n c t i o n s of the eyes  utterance.  She  movement of the eyes. always looks up, searching  found t h a t many s i g n s never occur  For example f o r QUOTE and  IMAGINE, the  signer  and w i t h SEARCH, the eyes look around as i f a c t u a l l y  f o r something.  C l o s i n g the eyes has  o c c u r r i n g , f o r example, w i t h can a l s o serve  without  SLOW.  According  to r e g u l a t e t u r n - t a k i n g  been used f o r emphasis, to Baker (1978) eye  i n ASL.  A s i g n e r does not  i n i t i a t e a t u r n u n t i l the d e s i r e d addressee looks at him  or h e r .  c o n t r o l of the f l o o r can be m a i n t a i n e d by a v o i d i n g d i r e c t eye F a c i a l expression. of the muscles c o n t r o l l i n g  F a c i a l expression  refers  to the  activity  Many manual s i g n s r e q u i r e concomitant f a c i a l a c t i v i t y , j u s t as  accompanied by a puckering head.  ASL  a l s o has  l e x i c a l items, may  For i n s t a n c e , NOT-YET may  of the nose and  f a c i a l expressions  been found t h a t p u f f e d cheeks i s a p r o d u c t i v e  The  her eyebrows and how  f a c i a l expression  v a r i a n t s which use  the  phrase ' b i g t r e e '  B e l l u g i & F i s c h e r (1972) and  the head sideways.  It  has the  Stokoe  manual s i g n s of  negate a s i g n by frowning and  shaking  of  means of i l l u s t r a t i n g  (1960) have observed that a l t h o u g h t h e r e are ASL a s i g n e r may  others  which can be s u b s t i t u t e d f o r  be produced w i t h p u f f e d cheeks p l u s the manual s i g n TREE.  negation,  etc.  be  a sideways shaking  such as a d j e c t i v e s or adverbs.  magnitude of o b j e c t s or events.  So,  contact.  the mouth, nose, eyebrows, forehead,  r e q u i r e s p e c i f i c eye movements.  gaze  lowering  h i s or  Baker (1976) demonstrates  can operate g r a m a t i c a l l y by comparing  the manual s i g n s f o r REMEMBER THAT.  (See  four Figure  3).  15  Figure  3.  How f a c i a l e x p r e s s i o n Baker, 1976:27).  assumes a s y n t a c t i c f u n c t i o n i n  REMEMBER THAT  'I remember that*  REMEMBER THAT ^— Neg > (brow  ASL  'Do  REMEMBER THAT Neg&Q ) ( r a i s e d brow  'Don't you  head.  The  i n 'big t r e e ' vs.  head was  tilted  h e a d t i l t was already  'I don't remember t h a t . ' squint)  REMEMBER THAT <- Q — 4 ( r a i s e d brows)  The  tilt  of the head can  f o r the l a t t e r .  the  forward has  In a study of  ASL  that r e l a t i v e clauses He  reports  the head i s t i l t e d the nose i s  l i n g u i s t i c information  wrinkled.  are  forward  and  of the body to i n d i c a t e s i z e ( L i d d e l l , c i t e d i n W i l b u r ,  1979), s h o u l d e r r a i s e d to i n d i c a t e d q u e s t i o n a c t u a l change i n i n c l i n a t i o n of the  been used to i n d i c a t e v a r i o u s  or s i z e (Baker, 1976)  body from n e u t r a l to the l e f t  the r i g h t ( B e l l u g i & F i s c h e r , 1972).  The  characters  and or  s h i f t i n body i n c l i n a t i o n  to has  i n a s t o r y , p a r t i c u l a r l y to  i s speaking to whom.  signing Rate of s i g n i n g has  been examined e x p e r i m e n t a l l y  by B e l l u g i  and  (1972) where comparisons were made between the time needed to  r e l a t e a s t o r y i n E n g l i s h and versions  in  Aspects of body posture t h a t have been found  s i g n i f i c a n t i n transmitting  Fischer  slightly  f a c i a l expression.  backward, the eyebrows s l i g h t l y r a i s e d and  Rate of  In the former,  discovered  the s i g n i n g of r e l a t i v e c l a u s e ,  backward t i l t  that.'  Sideways shaking of the head  ( c i t e d i n Baker, 1976)  Body p o s t u r e .  remember  operate as an a d j e c t i v e  ' t i n y t r e e ' (Baker, 1976).  are marked by s p e c i f i c head p o s i t i o n and that during  remember that?*  squint)  been mentioned i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h n e g a t i o n .  syntak, L i d d e l l  show who  you  backward w h i l e s i g n i n g TREE, and  noticed  ASL.  i n ASL.  of the s t o r y contained  the same semantic content and  Results  i n d i c a t e that the  two  the same number of p r o p o s i t i o n s ,  had  took the same amount of time to produce.  16  A d i f f e r e n c e i n m o d a l i t y was  apparent w i t h r e s p e c t to the number of  l e x i c a l u n i t s ; 50% more words than s i g n s were needed. a r t i c u l a t i o n was  2.4  s i g n s per second and 4.7  average  r a t e f o r p r o p o s i t i o n s per second was  and 1.5  f o r the spoken s t o r y .  Signing  space In ASL,  space.  The average  words per second. 1.3  rate  The  f o r the s i g n e d s t o r y  a r t i c u l a t i o n of s i g n s i s r e s t r i c t e d  to a p a r t i c u l a r  In g e n e r a l , the hands do not extend above the head or below  w a i s t l e v e l , nor beyond the r e a c h of the arms to the s i d e s w i t h elbows c l o s e t o the body (Klima & B e l l u g i , 1979).  Few  s i g n s occur a t the  l i m i t s of t h i s space and o n l y r a r e l y do any s i g n s exceed limits.  the  normal  V i o l a t i o n can occur by a m p l i f y i n g the dimension of a movement,  l e n g t h e n i n g i t s path or widening  the diameter of a s i g n .  S c h l e s i n g e r (1978) suggest t h a t v i o l a t i o n of the normal  Namir & signing  limits  i s a d e v i c e used to i n t e n s i f y c e r t a i n s i g n s , thereby modulating  their  meaning.  Discourse In connected d i s c o u r s e , a d j a c e n t s i g n s may  influence  o t h e r , r e s u l t i n g i n m o d i f i c a t i o n of one or both s i g n s . s i m i l a r to c o a r t i c u l a t i o n e f f e c t s i n o r a l speech. ( c i t e d i n K e g l & W i l b u r , 1976)  each  The e f f e c t i s  Chinchor & K e g l  i n a v i d e o t a p e d v e r s i o n of The  Three  L i t t l e P i g s n o t i c e d t h a t the s i g n LET, u s u a l l y s i g n e d a t w a i s t was  level,  s i g n e d i n s t e a d a t chest l e v e l i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of the p l a c e of  a r t i c u l a t i o n of the next s i g n , ME.  We  can see that p r o x i m a l  i n t e r a c t i n ASL as they do i n o r a l language.  In ASL,  elements  time and  tense  a r e not marked on the v e r b as i n E n g l i s h , but are e s t a b l i s h e d a t the b e g i n n i n g of a c o n v e r s a t i o n and h e l d u n t i l the time r e f e r e n c e i s changed.  T h i s i s compatible w i t h a view i n the study of v o c a l  languages  t h a t tense i s a p r o p e r t y of d i s c o u r s e r a t h e r than a p r o p e r t y  of s e n t e n c e s .  Friedman  (1975) s p e c i f i e s a time l i n e which d e s c r i b e s an  a r c b e g i n n i n g i n f r o n t of the s i g n e r s dominant s i d e , t o u c h i n g the cheek and c o n t i n u i n g behind the s i g n e r ' s head.  The space i n f r o n t of the  body i n d i c a t e s p r e s e n t , s l i g h t l y more forward i n d i c a t e s near f u t u r e f a r forward s i g n i f i e s v e r y d i s t a n t f u t u r e . s i g n a l l e d i n the space above the s h o u l d e r .  S i m i l a r l y , past time i s  and  17  The p r e c e d i n g summary of the unique c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of ASL  that  o r i g i n a t e from i t s d e s i g n a t e d m o d a l i t y of p r e s e n t a t i o n supports the c l a i m t h a t d e s p i t e s u p e r f i c i a l d i f f e r e n c e s , ASL i s fundamentally l i n g u i s t i c a l l y s i m i l a r to o t h e r languages  of the w o r l d .  A S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c View of Language C o n s i d e r a t i o n of the s o c i a l dimensions  of language  has been  p o s i t e d by many r e s e a r c h e r s as an a l t e r n a t i v e to t r a d i t i o n a l a n a l y s i s (Gumperz, 1964;  Hymes, 1962,  1964a; E r v i n - T r i p p ,  linguistic  1964).  I n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h i s type would assume a broader view of the process of communication and f o c u s on "Who on what o c c a s i o n ? "  says what to whom, i n what way  Such a n a l y s i s i s the domain of  Traditional linguistic  and  sociolinguistics.  theory  ... i s concerned p r i m a r i l y w i t h an i d e a l speaker l i s t e n e r , i n a c o m p l e t e l y homogeneous speech community, who knows i t s language p e r f e c t l y and i s u n a f f e c t e d by such g r a m m a t i c a l l y i r r e l e v a n t c o n d i t i o n s as memory l i m i t a t i o n s , d i s t r a c t i o n s , s h i f t s of a t t e n t i o n and i n t e r e s t , and e r r o r s (random or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ) i n a p p l y i n g h i s knowledge i n a c t u a l performance. (Chomsky, 1965:3). Chomsky's proposed model of language,  transformational generative  grammar c r u c i a l l y d i s t i n g u i s h e s l i n g u i s t i c competence and performance.  linguistic  L i n g u i s t i c competence i s concerned w i t h the u n d e r l y i n g  knowledge of language  s t r u c t u r e that i s i m p l i c i t  i n what the  ideal  s p e a k e r - l i s t e n e r says, but i s not n e c e s s a r i l y a c c e s s i b l e by p e r s o n a l report.  T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l g e n e r a t i v e grammar attempts  to e x p l i c a t e  the  knowledge t h a t permits the i n d i v i d u a l to produce and understand  an  i n f i n i t e s e t of sentences.  with  L i n g u i s t i c performance  i s concerned  the implementation and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of speech events, and i s not w i t h i n the scope of t h i s l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r y .  A c c o r d i n g to s o c i o -  l i n g u i s t s , Chomsky's theory of competence p o s t u l a t e s i d e a l  speech  events i n a b s t r a c t i o n , o f f e r i n g no importance  to the s o c i a l  c u l t u r a l i n f l u e n c e s which may  t h e i r very e x i s t e n c e .  have determined  S o c i o c u l t u r a l dimensions  and  t h a t seem to be i n e x t r i c a b l y l i n k e d to  speech events i n c l u d e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the people i n v o l v e d i n a communicative  i n t e r a c t i o n , the l o c a l e , the time and  interaction.  S l o b i n (1971) argues  the t o p i c of the  t h a t t h e r e has been l a c k of concern  r e g a r d i n g the s o c i a l s e t t i n g as i t i n f l u e n c e s language  b e h a v i o r , and  18  Goffman (1964) I n s i s t s t h a t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s o c i a l u n t i l now has  " n e g l e c t e d " , should be d e s c r i b e d i n d e t a i l .  been remedied to some degree i n r e c e n t y e a r s ,  situation,  This  although  t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l i s t s have not r e d e f i n e d the scope of t h e i r enquiry.  situation  S o c i o l i n g u i s t s do not argue t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l  linguistic  linguistic  theory i s no l o n g e r r e l e v a n t , but r a t h e r t h a t the s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c might be l i n k e d i n some way changes i n the t h e o r y .  to the e x i s t i n g t h e o r y , and may  data  i n c i t e some  For,  . . . j u s t as t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l theory c o u l d absorb p r e d e c e s s o r s and handle s t r u c t u r a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s beyond t h e i r grasp, so new r e l a t i o n s h i p s , r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h an i n c r e d i b l e s o c i a l component, w i l l become s a l i e n t t h a t w i l l r e q u i r e a broader theory to absorb and handle them. (Hymes, 1971:273) Hymes (1971) proposed the term "communicative competence" as the f o c u s of t h i s broader  s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c theory.  Communicative  competence emcompasses (1) u n d e r l y i n g knowledge of s o c i a l a p p r o p r i a t e ness as w e l l as (2) u n d e r l y i n g knowledge of grammatical s t r u c t u r e . Relevant  f a c t o r s i n c l u d e a t t i t u d e s , v a l u e s and m o t i v a t i o n s r e l a t e d  all  a s p e c t s of language, and  and  c u l t u r a l norms.  social  A c q u i s i t i o n of such competence i s a f u n c t i o n of  the s o c i a l i z a t i o n p r o c e s s . the context  the i n t e r a c t i o n of language w i t h  to  The  c h i l d i s exposed to l i n g u i s t i c i n p u t iji  of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n r a t h e r than a d j a c e n t  knowledge of which Hymes speaks i s v a s t , gathered of every s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n t h a t the speaker  to i t .  from the  enters.  The  experience  Goffman (1964)  f i n d s i t hard to imagine a s o c i a l v a r i a b l e t h a t does not have even a s l i g h t a f f e c t on speech.  Members of a p a r t i c u l a r speech community,  then, have i n t e r n a l i z e d the r u l e s of grammar and a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s speech t h a t are shared  by o t h e r members and  t h a t govern t h e i r  of  speech  behavior. Phenomena which emerged through a c t i o n of s o c i o c u l t u r a l and  i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the  inter-  l i n g u i s t i c events have become the core of  s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c d a t a . D e s c r i p t i o n of the nature of these phenomena i s abundant and d i v e r s e , c o v e r i n g i s s u e s such as: where two speaker  diglossia, a  situation  or more v a r i e t i e s of the same language are used by the same  under d i f f e r e n t c o n d i t i o n s (Ferguson,  1964b);  "baby-talk"  m o d i f i c a t i o n s i n language t h a t an a d u l t implements when a d d r e s s i n g a young c h i l d  (Berko  Gleason,  i n t i m a c y or condescension  1973); terms of address,  ( e . g . French  connoting  t u ) , f o r m a l i t y or  reverence  19  (e.g. casual  French vous) (Brown & Gilman, 1960); and  the use  of an  intimate,  or f o r m a l s t y l e of speech when a d d r e s s i n g p a r t i c i p a n t s  of  v a r i o u s ages, s o c i a l s t a t u s e s or o c c u p a t i o n a l r o l e s (Joos, 1964). Hymes, making note of the states  p e r v a s i v e n e s s of s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c phenomena  that  No normal person, and no normal community, i s l i m i t e d to a s i n g l e way of s p e a k i n g , to an unchanging monotony that would p r e c l u d e i n d i c a t i o n of r e s p e c t , insolence, mock s e r i o u s n e s s , humor, r o l e d i s t a n c e and i n t i m a c y by s w i t c h i n g from one mode of speech to a n o t h e r . (Hymes, 1972:38) A c l o s e r examination of t h i s statement w i l l c l a r i f y some of fundamental c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a "broad" view of The  the  communication.  community to which Hymes r e f e r s i s the speech community,  an  aggregate whose members share a t l e a s t a s i n g l e speech v a r i e t y , as  well  as knowledge of  The  the  constraints  community i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d  by  which govern i t s a p p r o p r i a t e use.  regular  i n t e r a c t i o n s among members i n  which s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s are e s t a b l i s h e d of a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s must be decode the  and  maintained.  shared, so that members can  s o c i a l meaning i n t h e i r messages.  speaking community i n Quebec c o n s t i t u t e s  one  group of automobile mechanics working at the  The  rules  both encode  For example, the  and  English  speech community, w h i l e a same garage  constitutes  another. Hymes g i v e s s e v e r a l  examples of d i f f e r e n t ways of  which w i t h i n  a p a r t i c u l a r speech community c o n s t i t u t e  repertoire.  This  repertoire  f o r m u l a t i n g messages, that r e g u l a r l y employed i n the members.  c o n t a i n s a l l the  i s , the  repertoire  controlled  be  lexical,  p a r a l i n g u i s t i c features.  f o r example, a member would c o n s i d e r the  form the message takes may  l e x i c a l l y and  forms  c a r r y a l t e r n a t i v e s of  choose the ones which c o n v e n t i o n a l l y  case the  a c c e p t a b l e ways of  t o t a l i t y of l i n g u i s t i c  semantic, s y n t a c t i c , p h o n o l o g i c a l and  and  verbal  course of communicative i n t e r a c t i o n among  V a r i e t i e s i n the  indicate respect,  a  speaking,  alternates  signal his intention. slower than normal  To  In t h i s  rate,  s y n t a c t i c a l l y more complex, p r e c i s e l y a r t i c u l a t e d and/or  i n intonation.  c o m p o s i t i o n of the communities and v a r i e t i e s i n the  I t i s important to remember that  repertoire w i l l  t h a t not  the  be d i f f e r e n t f o r d i f f e r e n t speech  a l l members of a community have access to a l l  repertoire.  Hymes c o i n s  the  term  "differential  20  competence" knowledge provided  t o account f o r two members of a speech community whose  and use of a v a i l a b l e v a r i e t i e s d i f f e r s . by B l o o m f i e l d ,  the Menomini. "atrocious."  who  described  The f i r s t was a man  An example i s  the language of two members of  of f o r t y whose use of Menomini  He used a s m a l l v o c a b u l a r y , few i n f l e c t i o n s and o n l y  sentence c o n s t r u c t i o n s .  The other was a woman who  and h i g h l y i d i o m a t i c Menomini"  (Bloomfield,  Having e s t a b l i s h e d the n o t i o n s r e p e r t o i r e , we must now  consider  1927:394).  of speech community and v e r b a l  the communicative s i t u a t i o n i t s e l f . linguistic  importance t h a t surround the communicative i n t e r a c t i o n . include:  few  spoke a " b e a u t i f u l  The s i t u a t i o n r e f e r s to a l l the elements of s o c i a l and  comonents  was  particpants—sender(s)  Formally,  the  and r e c e i v e r ( s ) ; c h a n n e l —  spoken, w r i t t e n or s i g n language; c o d e — l i n g u i s t i c and/or p a r a linguistic;  s e t t i n g — l o c a l e i n which the a c t i o n a c c u r s ,  on a bus, i n a t e l e v i s i o n s t u d i o ; f o r m — s t r u c t u r a l the code; and t o p i c — t h e  Focus on any one of these  would r e v e a l the r e l e v a n t f e a t u r e s  range of p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s . components  of t h a t component and the  In a d d i t i o n , the r e l a t i o n s h i p between  can a l s o be i n v e s t i g a t e d .  t o p i c s of c o n v e r s a t i o n  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  s u b j e c t matter of the i n t e r a c t i o n (Hymes,  1962, 1964a; E r v i n - T r i p p , 1964, 1969). components  e.g. the home,  For example, we might ask what  would be expected from c e r t a i n p a r t i c i p a n t s and  what would happen to the t o p i c i f one of the p a r t i c i p a n t s was  replaced  by another i n d i v i d u a l ?  the r u l e s  Such a comparison would h e l p  of communication by i l l u s t r a t i n g  s p e c i f i c features  describe  of the s o c i a l  s i t u a t i o n t h a t can t r i g g e r a change, i n t h i s case a change i n participants. In order  f o r the speaker to be e f f e c t i v e i n a communicative  i n t e r a c t i o n , he must be a b l e  to e v a l u a t e  the s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s  present  and on t h i s b a s i s s e l e c t from h i s r e p e r t o i r e of a l t e r n a t e forms t h a t which w i l l not only be a p p r o p r i a t e , intention.  The a b i l i t y  but a l s o match h i s communicative  to s e l e c t from among the a l t e r n a t e s i s known as  " c o d e - s w i t c h i n g " or " s t y l e - s w i t c h i n g . "  The l a t t e r term p o s i t e d by Joos  (1967), w i l l be used i n the remainder of t h i s S e v e r a l methods have been employed switching.  report.  to i n v e s t i g a t e  style-  In attempting to e s t a b l i s h c o r r e l a t i o n s between  and s o c i o c u l t u r a l v a r i a b l e s , the s o c i o l i n g u i s t must o n l y demonstrate t h a t a l t e r i n g the components  linguistic  only  of the i n t e r a c t i o n w i l l  yield  21  l i n g u i s t i c v a r i a t i o n , but systematic. how  and  a l s o show that much of the v a r i a t i o n i s  In terms of d e s c r i p t i o n , s t u d i e s attempt to show when,  to what extent  speakers modify t h e i r speech as a f u n c t i o n of  p a r t i c u l a r v a r i a b l e s i n a given explanation,  In terms of  s t u d i e s are designed to e s t a b l i s h the norms and  g i v e n speech community.  According  s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c data w i l l h e l p He  s o c i a l context.  suggests t h a t f i r s t ,  i n t e r a c t i o n and  r u l e s of a  to Hymes (1974), a n a l y s i s of  to e s t a b l i s h the r u l e s of  communication.  one  should  i d e n t i f y the components of  second, one  should  discover  these components.  an  the r e l a t i o n s h i p between  I t i s w i t h i n t h i s framework t h a t s e v e r a l  a s p e c t s of the s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c l i t e r a t u r e w i l l be  important  reviewed.  Participants That speakers possess a broad communicative competence which permits them to use  g r a m m a t i c a l l y c o r r e c t and  forms of language has  already  e n t a i l s can be e x e m p l i f i e d  socially  been e s t a b l i s h e d .  by f o c u s s i n g on one  appropriate  What t h i s  competence  of the components of  s i t u a t i o n , f o r example, the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n a two-way  the  face-to-face  interaction. In any  a c t of communication, there  more " r e c e i v e r s " who 1962).  The  together  may  i s a "sender" and  be c a l l e d  one  " i n t e r l o c u t o r s " (Hymes,  sender i s the person whose t u r n i t i s to convey some  information.  The  r e c e i v e r i s the audience and  which shapes the sender's o u t p u t . r e l a t i o n s h i p between sender and doctor-patient  provides  the  I t can be expected that  feedback the  receiver i s reciprocal, for  or t e a c h e r - s t u d e n t .  Every i n d i v i d u a l has  instance,  a number of  s o c i a l i d e n t i t i e s , each w i t h a p r e s c r i b e d a l l o c a t i o n of r i g h t s duties  (Goodenough, 1965).  person's age, for  and  Some i d e n t i t i e s are a s c r i b e d by v i r t u e of a  sex and/or r a c i a l o r i g i n .  example, p r o f e s s i o n , a c q u i r e d  skill  Other i d e n t i t i e s are  achieved,  and/or s o c i a l s t a t u s .  Social  status characterizes a p a r t i c i p a n t ' s r e l a t i v e s o c i a l standing. two-way i n t e r a c t i o n , the sender may standing. are not  or  adopt s u p e r i o r or  Gumperz (1972) s t a t e s t h a t the f e a t u r e s  permanent q u a l i t i e s of speakers, but  communicative symbols. information of messages.  rather  inferior  of s t a t u s and  role  abstract  Indeed, these a t t r i b u t e s mark important  t h a t must be c o n s i d e r e d  In a  i n both the encoding and  social  decoding  I t seems t h a t communcatively competent speakers use  these  22 symbols to c r e a t e a c o n t r o l l e d i m p r e s s i o n can and  do decode the  by Lambert (1976).  s o c i a l import of a message has  Goffman (1964) p o i n t s out  a t t r i b u t e s themselves, i t i s the v a l u e i s considered  (Edwards, 1976).  social situation—what  t h a t r a t h e r than  placed  can assume the  i d e n t i t y depends on the n a t u r e of  the a c t i v i t y  r o l e of doctor  h i s car to a garage to be i s cognizant  serviced.  person who  For example, a  In e i t h e r s i t u a t i o n , t h i s  obligations.  The  man brings  person  sender, when s e l e c t i n g  r e p e r t o i r e , a n t i c i p a t e s the  i s to r e c e i v e t h a t message.  e f f e c t of r e l a t i v e s o c i a l s t a t u s of the sender and  been o u t l i n e d by Brown and They show how  else  i n h i s o f f i c e , or consumer when he  of h i s r i g h t s and  q u a l i t i e s of the  the  i s , where i t takes p l a c e , who  the form of the message from h i s or her  address.  the  on these a t t r i b u t e s t h a t  i s i n a t t e n d a n c e , the purpose of the i n t e r a c t i o n .  has  been e s t a b l i s h e d  i n a communicative i n t e r a c t i o n .  S e l e c t i o n of a g i v e n  The  That people  receiver  Gilman (1960) i n t h e i r study of forms  the use  of pronouns i n F r e n c h , I t a l i a n  and  and  German i s dependent on the s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n t e r l o c u t o r s . In t h i s study, r e c i p r o c a l and vous and  f a m i l i a r t u (and  demonstrated.  nonreciprocal  usage of the  c o r r e s p o n d i n g terms i n I t a l i a n and  In n o n r e c i p r o c a l  usage, one  and  s o l i d a r i t y , and  formality.  Ervin-Tripp  technicians  i n a u n i v e r s i t y medical  J . J . Hey, A.D.  Len,  c i t e s the example of the u t t e r a n c e s  shoot the c h a r t to me,  willya? leave  that  chart  an i n f o r m a l  speech s t y l e when c o v e r s i n g w i t h a p h y s i c i a n . and  of  laboratory:  Oh by the way, Doctor, c o u l d you when you're through.  chose a more formal  the same pronoun, _tu_  vous to i n d i c a t e a degree of  In t h i s example, J . J . took the o p t i o n of u s i n g and  i n r e t u r n i s addressed  In r e c i p r o c a l usage, both members use  to express i n t i m a c y  German) i s  of the p a r t i c i p a n t s , the  s o c i a l s u p e r i o r , addressed the o t h e r w i t h t u and with vous.  respectual  address form  In c o n t r a s t  A.D.  rank-marked s t y l e ( E r v i n - T r i p p , 1976:32).  Code Code may  be d e f i n e d  as a s y s t e m a t i c  occur i n a p a r t i c u l a r s e t t i n g .  set of s i g n a l s which  co-  I t i s the c o l l e c t i o n of s t r u c t u r a l  components that comprise a language or v a r i e t y of a language t h a t would be a p p r o p r i a t e  i n a given  Gumperz (1961, 1962) i n the home, and  s i t u a t i o n ( E r v i n - T r i p p , 1964).  d i s t i n g u i s h e s between v e r n a c u l a r ,  superposed v a r i e t y , the norm i n o t h e r  For  example,  the speech used social  23  situations.  V a r i a t i o n i n code can be broken down i n t o changes t h a t  occur at the p h o n o l o g i c a l , of  l e x i c a l , s y n t a c t i c and  paralinguistic levels  language. Joos (1967) o u t l i n e s f i v e s t y l e s of d i s c o u r s e  correspond to p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n s and c e r t a i n s e t of l i n g u i s t i c and styles reflect c a s u a l and  which are c h a r a c t e r i z e d by  p a r a l i n g u i s t i c features.  the f o r m a l i t y of a s i t u a t i o n ranging  c o n s u l t a t i v e to f o r m a l  label", a l i s t  and  frozen.  of conventions t h a t serves  c o n s u l t a t i v e s t y l e has  two  and  no  f e a t u r e of formal  i s being  example,  sender  Casual s t y l e i s reserved  to s i g n a l t h i s s t y l e .  for friends  E l l i p s i s and  "Oh, and  information s l a n g are  two  The most obvious d e f i n i n g  s t y l e i s the l a c k of r e c e i v e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n .  This  to the s i z e of the group t h a t the sender i s a d d r e s s i n g ,  conversation  between s t r a n g e r s  Code l a b e l s i n c l u d e may,  of I_, me,  her  i n the  addressed or perhaps the purpose of the i n t e r a c t i o n .  instance, style.  a "code-  i n the content of h i s or  r e l i a n c e on r e c e i v e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n .  be due  the  i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by an absence of background  f e a t u r e s which serve  may  Each s t y l e has  Code l a b e l s would i n c l u d e r e c e i v e r i n s e r t i o n s l i k e ,  or "That's r i g h t . "  i n s i d e r s and  intimate,  second, the addressee p a r t i c i p a t e s c o n t i n u o u s l y  interaction. I see,"  from  First,  a  These f i v e  to i d e n t i f y i t . For  defining features.  s u p p l i e s adequate background i n f o r m a t i o n message, and  i n E n g l i s h which  my)  as i n "One  u s u a l l y begins i n  as i n "May  frame, the t e x t i s u s u a l l y o r g a n i z e d fluent, with precise pronunciation  or p r a c t i c e d and  and  elaborate  For  formal  I h e l p you?", one  f i n d s i n the l i t e r a t u r e . . . . "  (instead  In the  public information,  as i n a n o v e l .  grammar.  by i n t o n a t i o n .  is  Frozen s t y l e likely  Intimate s t y l e , which excludes a l l  aims at reminding the addressee of some f e e l i n g  that the speaker has c a s u a l sentence.  formal  presentation  i s found m o s t l y i n w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l where the p a r t i c i p a n t s are to remain s t r a n g e r s ,  who  The  by e x t r a c t i n g some p a t t e r n from a p r e v i o u s  stated  message meaning i n t h i s s t y l e i s o f t e n conveyed  These f i v e s t y l e s r e p r e s e n t  d i r e c t l y l i n k e d to s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n s .  ways of speaking that  are  An e s s e n t i a l p o i n t of Joos'  t h e s i s i s t h a t s t y l e - s w i t c h i n g appears i n the language of m o n o l i n g u a l s , who  s w i t c h between v a r i e t i e s of a s i n g l e language. Labov's r e s e a r c h  i n New  York C i t y r e v e a l e d  whose members e x h i b i t e d s y s t e m a t i c level.  a speech community  s t y l e - s w i t c h i n g at the  Evidence came from r e c o r d i n g  phonological  the frequency of occurrence of  24  f i v e phenomes, f o r example, the frequency w i t h which the f i n a l or c o n s o n a n t a l / r / was (Labov, 1966).  pronounced i n words l i k e guard, bare and  Results  i n d i c a t e d that use  s p e c i f i c a s p e c t s of the s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n .  beer  of / r / c o r r e l a t e d w i t h That i s , frequency  of.  o c c u r r e n c e of p a r t i c u l a r phonemes c o r r e l a t e d w i t h o c c u p a t i o n , group and  socioeconomic s t a t u s .  v a r i a t i o n was occurred  pre-  Labov a l s o found t h a t  ethnic  phonological  c l o s e l y t i e d to the f o r m a l i t y of the s i t u a t i o n , i . e . / r /  l e s s f r e q u e n t l y i n c a s u a l speech and  more f r e q u e n t l y i n  formal  contexts. A l a r g e p a r t of the v o c a b u l a r y of any all  i t s speakers, but  restricted (Laver  code i s shared  there are a l s o c e r t a i n s e t s of l e x i c a l  by  items  to the speech of c e r t a i n groups w i t h i n a speech community  & T r u d g i l l , 1979).  Access to a p a r t i c u l a r v a r i e t y r e f l e c t s  common i n t e r e s t s , e x p e r i e n c e or o c c u p a t i o n t e c h n i c a l vocabulary i s u s u a l l y confined particular topic. vocabularies cohesion.  which r e f l e c t  Use  to those who  s p e c i a l i z e i n the  s i m i l a r i n t e r e s t s as w e l l as r e i n f o r c e group  of s l a n g or c o l l o q u i a l t e r m i n o l o g y i s a powerful  to i d e n t i f y One  of the p a r t i c i p a n t s ;  M i n o r i t y groups are known to have developed s p e c i a l  marker, o f t e n r e l a t e d to age serves  given  Use  of outdated s l a n g  also  speakers.  s t y l e t h a t has  frequently called  of i t s u s e r s .  social  the  been i n t e n s e l y i n v e s t i g a t e d i s 4  one  "baby t a l k r e g i s t e r " .  In the e a r l i e s t d i s c u s s i o n of baby t a l k r e g i s t e r , Ferguson (1964a) claimed E n g l i s h and  t h a t i n many c u l t u r e s , i n c l u d i n g Arab, Comanche,  Spanish s o c i e t i e s , there  i s a s t y l e of speech  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a d u l t s a d d r e s s i n g  infants.  The  formal  features  of  t h i s s t y l e i n c l u d e a change i n l e x i c o n , s i m p l i f i c a t i o n of grammar, formation  of words by r e d u p l i c a t i o n , s i m p l i c a t i o n of consonant  c l u s t e r s , general the v o i c e .  l a b i a l i z a t i o n and  Examples of l e x i c a l a l t e r n a t e s i n E n g l i s h b a b y - t a l k s t y l e  are words l i k e bunny, n i g h t - n i g h t versions  a r i s e i n fundamental frequency of  and  bye-bye, which are  of a d u l t forms ( E r v i n - T r i p p , 1969).  modified  B a b y - t a l k i n some  languages, Berber f o r example, possess a much g r e a t e r  separate l e x i c o n  than does E n g l i s h b a b y - t a l k (Bynon, 1977). 4  T h i s r e g i s t e r i n E n g l i s h has detail.  See  been d e s c r i b e d  and  Andersen's annotated b i b l i o g r a p h y  discussed  i n great  (Snow & Ferguson, 1977).  25  Both Hymes (1974b) and C r y s t a l (1971) d i r e c t our a t t e n t i o n to p a r a l i n g u i s t i c features  which may  i d e n t i f y c e r t a i n speakers i n  particular situations.  V a r i a t i o n may  occur i n l e v e l of p i t c h , h i g h or  low; v o c a l q u a l i t y , breathy or c l e a r ; volume, s o f t or loud;  and/or  speech r a t e , slow or f a s t .  R e d u c t i o n i n r a t e of speech and i n c r e a s e  l e v e l of p i t c h are f e a t u r e s  which have been i d e n t i f i e d i n a d u l t s '  speech to c h i l d r e n (Ferguson, 1964,  1977;  Andersen & Johnson  Berko Gleason, 1973), n u r s e s ' speech to h o s p i t a l p a t i e n t s addressed to f o r e i g n e r s  (Snow & Ferguson,  in  1973;  and  speech  1977).  From the review of two components of the  communicative  i n t e r a c t i o n , p a r t i c i p a n t s and codes, and the r e l a t i o n s h i p between these components, we  see the e x i s t e n c e  c h o i c e of a l t e r n a t e s all  of an u n d e r l y i n g  i n a repertoire.  system governing the  Furthermore, we  can see that not  combinations of codes and p a r t i c i p a n t s can o c c u r .  A S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c View of ASL Discussion as i t p e r t a i n s  so f a r has f o c u s s e d on the nature of  to spoken languages of the w o r l d .  presented e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g the e x i s t e n c e (Stokoe, 1973;  Woodward, 1971,  1973;  style-switching  Researchers have a l s o  of s t y l e - s w i t c h i n g  C i c o u r e l , 1978).  i n ASL  In accordance  w i t h Hymes' (1974) paradigm f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g the r u l e s of communication,  i n v e s t i g a t o r s have s u c c e s s f u l l y i d e n t i f i e d the  components of ASL communicative anecdotally,  i n t e r a c t i o n and d e s c r i b e d ,  the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the components.  albeit  Discussion  now  t u r n s to these i n v e s t i g a t i o n s .  The deaf l i n g u i s t i c  community  The "speech community" i t s e l f ASL.  takes on an extended meaning i n  Deafness, more than j u s t a p h y s i c a l phenomenon " . . . i s a c u l t u r a l  phenomenon i n which s o c i a l , e m o t i o n a l , l i n g u i s t i c , and patterns  intellectual  and problems are i n e x t r i c a b l y bound t o g e t h e r " ( S c h l e s i n g e r  Meadow, 1971:1).  Deaf i n d i v i d u a l s who  members of the deaf community.  Their  so choose c o n s i d e r  themselves  common language, ASL,  i s one of  the c e n t r a l c o h e s i v e elements of the group.  C i c o u r e l and Boese  1972b),  out t h a t not a l l  Stokoe (1960, 1978) and o t h e r s p o i n t  individuals within Differences  the deaf community a c q u i r e  &  (1972a,  ASL i n the same manner.  i n the c i r c u m s t a n c e s of ASL a c q u i s i t i o n mark the d i f f e r e n c e  26  between n a t i v e s i g n e r s and non-native s i g n e r s . one who  l e a r n e d ASL as a f i r s t  deaf f a m i l y members.  language,  T h i s person was  The n a t i v e s i g n e r i s  i . e . d u r i n g c h i l d h o o d from  t h e r e f o r e a b l e to " l e a r n v a r i o u s  s u b t l e t i e s o f s i g n i n g . . . a n d r e l i e s on them f o r communicating i n t i m a c y , emotion,  s u b l e t y , double meaning...which a second language  s i g n e r would  have g r e a t d i f f i c u l t y a c q u i r i n g u n l e s s he spends a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of  time among the deaf" ( C i c o u r e l & Boese, 1972:32).  native signer i s l i k e l y to  Furthermore,  the  to use v a r i e t i e s of ASL which do not correspond  E n g l i s h syntax, w h i l e the non-native s i g n e r would t y p i c a l l y r e l y  English structure. a person t h a t may  on  Meadow (1972) o u t l i n e s t h r e e p e r i o d s i n the l i f e mark h i s or her entrance i n t o the deaf community:  i n f a n c y , when "the m i l e s t o n e s i n s i g n language m i l e s t o n e s i n spoken language  acquisition"  acquisition parallel  of (1) the  ( S c h l e s i n g e r , 1971:206), (2)  the time o f e n r o l l m e n t i n a r e s i d e n t i a l s c h o o l f o r the deaf, where the c h i l d may  l e a r n s i g n language  from peers, and  (3) the time of  g r a d u a t i o n form h i g h s c h o o l when the i n d i v i d u a l must communicate f u n c t i o n a l l y i n the community. to are  Some h e a r i n g people a l s o g a i n entrance  the deaf community—those whose p a r e n t ( s ) or o t h e r f a m i l y member(s) d e a f , a person m a r r i e d to a deaf spouse, a t e a c h e r o r i n d i v i d u a l  working w i t h the deaf.  P a r t i c i p a n t s i n ASL communicative  interaction  The d i s t i n c t i o n between n a t i v e and non-native s i g n e r s i s an important one because  i t c o n s t i t u t e s p a r t of each p a r t i c i p a n t ' s  i d e n t i t y , which as we  saw  status.  Kantor  e a r l i e r determines h i s r e l a t i v e  ( c i t e d i n W i l b u r , 1979)  demonstrates  social  social  that s i g n e r s  ( n a t i v e and n o n - n a t i v e ) a r e a b l e t o i d e n t i f y o t h e r s i g n e r s as n a t i v e or non-native.  Cues which i n f l u e n c e d t h e i r d e c i s i o n s were hands, rhythm  of  s i g n i n g , k i n d s of s i g n s , f a c i a l e x p r e s s i o n , body movement, l o c a t i o n  of  s i g n s and f i n g e r s p e l l i n g .  Lunde ( c i t e d i n Stokoe, 1978)  outlines  s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that d i s t i n g u i s h between the deaf and h e a r i n g person.  I t seems c l e a r t h a t some of these a s p e c t s serve to  d i f f e r e n t i a t e between members of the deaf community as w e l l . relevant s o c i a l role aspects include: of  language  The  (as noted above);  level  e d u c a t i o n (few deaf people o b t a i n h i g h s c h o o l c e r t i f i c a t e s and even  fewer a t t e n d c o l l e g e or u n i v e r s i t y ) ; income.  s o c i a l c l a s s ; o c c u p a t i o n and  As e x p l a i n e d e a r l i e r the s o c i a l i d e n t i t y of each  27  p a r t i c i p a n t i n an i n t e r a c t i o n i s i n p a r t  responsible  f o r the nature of  that i n t e r a c t i o n .  Code A number of s t u d i e s have demonstrated that v a r i e t i e s of exist.  Stokoe (1970, 1973)  using  as a model, demarcates High and  Ferguson's (1959) paper on d i g l o s s i a  Low  versions  of ASL  and  Manual E n g l i s h ,  where Manual E n g l i s h r e f e r s to the combination of s i g n s and s p e l l i n g that represents spoken E n g l i s h . from f o r m a l and  He  ASL  finger-  a morpheme to morpheme correspondence w i t h  proposes a two-dimensional continuum, e x t e n d i n g  i n f o r m a l Manual E n g l i s h to f o r m a l and  informal  ASL.  W i t h i n t h i s continuum, s i g n e r s have s e v e r a l v a r i e t i e s a v a i l a b l e to them f o r d i f f e r e n t communicative c o n t e x t s . which i s on the Manual E n g l i s h end  For example, the High v a r i e t y ,  of the continuum would be used i n a  church sermon or a u n i v e r s i t y l e c t u r e , w h i l e the Low would be  found i n c o n v e r s a t i o n  w i t h f a m i l y and  friends.  p a r t i c u l a r c o n t e x t s r e f l e c t v a r i a t i o n based on the J—  situation.  On  the other dimension, the  s i g n s , " developed and  used by  of s i g n language.  c o n s i s t e n t w i t h what we  which r e f e r s to i n t e r m e d i a t e  formational  aspects is  i n f l e c t i o n s and  P i d g i n Signed E n g l i s h  (PSE) the be  other s t r u c t u r e s have been  the a p p l i c a t i o n of three  agent-beneficiary  incorporation, and  reduplications  syntactic  and  negative  found an i m p l i c a t i o n a l  Those v a r i e t i e s which are c o n s i d e r e d and  or  languages.  v a r i e t i e s of s i g n language a l o n g  verb r e d u p l i c a t i o n —  fewer i n c o r p o r a t i o n s allow  with  w i t h i n Manual E n g l i s h or ASL  describes  Woodward i n v e s t i g a t e d  morphological rules —  hierarchy.  the  t o Signed E n g l i s h , where the s y n t a c t i c order may  c l o s e to E n g l i s h , but  i n c o r p o r a t i o n and  i n contact  form of the message i n v o c a l  Woodward (1973a, 1974)  modified.  f o r m a l i t y of  know about the i n f l u e n c e p a r t i c u l a r s e t t i n g s  p a r t i c i p a n t s have on the  continuum from ASL  These  range extends from "home  l e x i c o n , syntax and  Style-switching  ASL,  J  s m a l l groups when not  o t h e r groups, to s t a n d a r d i z e d  variety,  most E n g l i s h l i k e , have  than those more A S L - l i k e ,  f o r a wider range of a p p l i c a t i o n of these r u l e s .  which  Woodward  (1973b) found that v a r i a t i o n between v a r i e t i e s i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h f o u r v a r i a b l e s r e l a t e d to s o c i a l i d e n t i t y of participants.  These v a r i a b l e s i n c l u d e :  i s deaf, (2) whether or not  (1) whether or not  the s i g n e r has  the the  signer  deaf p a r e n t s , (3) whether or  28  not  the  s i g n e r has  only).  Results  c o l l e g e e x p e r i e n c e ( a p p l i c a b l e to deaf  i n d i c a t e t h a t one  person w i t h deaf p a r e n t s and years of age more apt  person who not  a p e r s o n who  learned  signing before s i x  learned  s i g n language a f t e r age  is  p a r e n t s and  about PSE  do  i s that i t i s  more c e n t r a l i z e d s i g n i n g space and  l e s s f a c i a l expression  a  s i x using v a r i e t i e s that  Another o b s e r v a t i o n  i n a more r e s t r i c t e d and  considerably  C o n v e r s e l y , one  signer, a signer with hearing  c l o s e l y resemble ASL.  signed  i s l i k e l y to f i n d a deaf person, a  u s i n g v a r i e t i e s t h a t approach ASL.  to f i n d a h e a r i n g  signers  with  (Woodward & Markowicz, c i t e d i n  W i l b u r , 1979). The the  v a r i e t i e s a l o n g the ASL-Signed E n g l i s h continuum  linguistic  tenet  t h a t languages i n c o n t a c t  borrowing forms and/or s t r u c t u r e s .  from E n g l i s h , ASL  has  i n f l u e n c e each o t h e r  In the case of E n g l i s h and  however, the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s o n e - s i d e d . patterns  While ASL  borrows  an i n s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on  Bragg (1973) acknowledges the i n f l u e n c e of E n g l i s h on ASL d i s c u s s i o n of A m e s l i s h . E n g l i s h that g i v e s  He  States.  Further  to the  deaf man  and  e x i s t d i s t i n c t v a r i e t i e s of ASL,  i n a 2 1/2-year-old h e a r i n g  a hearing  seen to s w i t c h  or  s i t u a t i o n a l context.  woman.  the studies  Meadow (1972) observed c h i l d , son  of an  educated  A 1 5 - y e a r - o l d deaf f o s t e r s i s t e r ,  l i v e d i n the home, used a l e s s E n g l i s h l i k e v a r i e t y of ASL. was  and  Furthermore,  r e v e l a t i o n t h a t w i t h i n the r e p e r t o i r e of  e v i d e n c e of s t y l e - s w i t c h i n g .  style-switching  i n his  ASL  deaf community members, t h e r e have r e v e a l e d  English.  Woodward, Bragg f e e l s t h a t the l e v e l  s t y l e of Ameslish a s i g n e r uses depends on the  in  linguistic  p i c t u r e of the communication p r o c e s s  c a r r i e d on by deaf people i n the United  Style-switching  by  ASL,  f e e l s t h a t i t i s a combination of ASL  a realistic  c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Stokoe and  reflect  from an E n g l i s h l i k e v a r i e t y of ASL  The  with his  who child  father  to spoken E n g l i s h w i t h h i s mother to the l e s s E n g l i s h l i k e v a r i e t y of ASL w i t h h i s  sister.  Erting  (1978) witnessed s t y l e - s w i t c h i n g  f o r the deaf where e i g h t l e a s t two  deaf c h i l d r e n and  language v a r i e t i e s , s w i t c h i n g  i n f o r m a l i t y of the s i t u a t i o n . used a formal signed  The  E n g l i s h during  two  i n a preschool  class  teachers u t i l i z e d  according  at  to the f o r m a l i t y  deaf t e a c h e r ' s a i d e and  the  an a c t i v i t y where s p e c i f i c  or  children English  29  constructions  were being taught.  requests during than q u e s t i o n  unstructured  In the  same manner c h i l d r e n ' s  a c t i v i t i e s were more c a s u a l and  forms observed d u r i n g  a structured  ASL-like  time, the l a t t e r  being  more E n g l i s h l i k e . A study by C i c o u r e l (1978) e x p l o r e d native  signers using  required  s t y l e - s w i t c h i n g of  B r i t i s h Sign Language (BSL).  Each s i g n e r  to t e l l the same s t o r y to the next s i g n e r u n t i l the  person signed  i t back to the f i r s t  signer.  From the  changes i n the i c o n i c form of the s i g n s were n o t i c e d  was  fourth  In a c t u a l i t y , the  s i g n e r produced the s t o r y to each of the o t h e r s .  four  first  videotape,  as the key  subject  a l t e r e d h i s production  i n accordance w i t h h i s p e r c e p t i o n s  receiver i n turn.  d i f f e r e n t e d i t i o n s were s a i d to range from a  The  h i g h l y E n g l i s h l i k e v a r i e t y of BSL included  l e x i c a l , s y n t a c t i c and  t o a more B S L - l i k e  of each  variety.  semantic s i m p l i f i c a t i o n and  Changes  elimination  of f i n g e r s p e l l i n g . Studies provide:  of s t y l e - s w i t c h i n g  i n ASL  to S i g n e d - E n g l i s h ,  detailed reports  the s u r f a c e  interactions.  described  In r e a l i t y ,  (4) i n  the  were v a r i e d i n  these s t u d i e s have  of s i g n language and  barely  the s o c i a l a s p e c t s of  There are s e v e r a l q u e s t i o n s which have yet  investigated.  The  most g l a r i n g gap  i n the  above concerns i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the s p e c i f i c  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of ASL  social  i n e s t a b l i s h i n g s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s between  the l i n g u i s t i c f e a t u r e s  systematically  n o t i c e d , and  i n v e s t i g a t i o n , what a s p e c t s of BSL  s e l f - e d i t i n g procedure.  the  of the many v a r i e t i e s , (3)  of when s t y l e - s w i t c h i n g was  case of C i c o u r e l ' s  signed  one  to  which form  (2) a p r o f i l e of the  a s p e c t s of the i n t e r a c t i o n t h a t e l i c i t  scratched  have intended  (1) an account of d i f f e r e n t v a r i e t i e s of ASL  continuum from ASL  the  (or BSL)  to  be  studies formational  t h a t vary from s i t u a t i o n to s i t u a t i o n .  There i s  c l e a r l y room f o r a d e t a i l e d i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the a s p e c t s of the code at formational,  lexical,  s y n t a c t i c and  p a r a l i n g u i s t i c l e v e l s of ASL  they i n t e r a c t w i t h each of the o t h e r components of the s i t u a t i o n , such as s e t t i n g , t o p i c and  formality.  nature would d e l i m i t r u l e s of communication i n ASL i s now  known about the' language of the  deaf.  An  as  communicative  i n q u i r y of t h i s  and  expand upon what  30  Statement of the The  c l a i m of the  Problem  present i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s t h a t u s e r s of  American Sign Language modify t h e i r s i g n i n g s y s t e m a t i c a l l y , i n response to v a r i a t i o n of elements i n the systematic  modification  linguistic  l e v e l s of  or  occurs a t most of the  relevant  world.  t h a t ASL  It follows  systematic  l i t e r a t u r e has  "style-switching"  competent users of n a t u r a l established  Furthermore,  l i n g u i s t i c and  the  para-  ASL.  Review of the modification,  social situation.  can  demonstrated t h a t  i s a phenomenon m a n i f e s t e d  languages of the w o r l d .  be and  i s considered  I t has  a natural  then, t h a t competent u s e r s of ASL  such  by  a l s o been  language of  will  the  exhibit  s t y l e - s w i t c h i n g as a f u n c t i o n of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  the  social situation. To  show t h a t t h i s i s the c a s e , t h i s study w i l l examine  compare l i n g u i s t i c and  p a r a l i n g u i s t i c features  s i g n i n g under d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l c o n d i t i o n s ; the  i n t e r r e l a t i o n between code and  scope of t h i s p r e l i m i n a r y  of a n a t i v e ASL  that  participants.  I t i s not w i t h i n  on the  study to determine i f the e f f e c t s of  i s to f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h the e x i s t e n c e  providing  user's  i s , i t w i l l focus  m a n i p u l a t i n g these s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c v a r i a b l e s are s y s t e m a t i c . step  and  of s t y l e - s w i t c h i n g  o r g a n i z e d e v i d e n c e of f o r m a l parameters of ASL  suggesting what s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s t r i g g e r e d  The by  that vary  the v a r i a t i o n .  first  and  CHAPTER 2 METHOD  S e l e c t i o n o f the P a r t i c i p a n t s The  p r i n c i p a l s u b j e c t , G.Y. who a c t e d as sender, was s e l e c t e d  as a n a t i v e s i g n e r .  G.Y., a 3 2 - y e a r - o l d male, was born w i t h a profound  b i l a t e r a l hearing l o s s . a c q u i r e d ASL from deaf  Although h i s p a r e n t s were not deaf,  G.Y.  f a m i l y members p r i o r t o s i x years of age.  He  attended G a l l a u d e t C o l l e g e and has been t e a c h i n g i n a s c h o o l f o r the deaf.  H i s primary The  source of communication i s ASL.  other f i v e p a r t i c i p a n t s , who a c t e d as r e c e i v e r s , were  chosen on the b a s i s of t h e i r s o c i a l s t a t u s r e l a t i v e t o the p r i n c i p a l subject.  Each s e n d e r - r e c e i v e r p a i r r e p r e s e n t e d a unique  A l l r e c e i v e r s were f a m i l i a r to the p r i n c i p a l investigation.  relationship.  s u b j e c t p r i o r t o the  A b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of each of the r e c e i v e r s f o l l o w s .  (1) D.A., a 2 6 - y e a r - o l d male, has had a severe h e a r i n g l o s s s i n c e b i r t h . He l e a r n e d ASL a f t e r s i x years of age, attended u n i v e r s i t y and has been t e a c h i n g a t a s c h o o l f o r the deaf.  D.A. uses o r a l speech as  h i s primary means o f communication. (2) S.E., a 3 7 - y e a r - o l d birth.  female, has had severe h e a r i n g l o s s s i n c e  She a c q u i r e d ASL a f t e r s i x years o f age.  S.E. i s a t e a c h e r ' s  a i d e a t a s c h o o l f o r the deaf and uses ASL as her primary means of communication. (3) E . I . , a 3 5 - y e a r - o l d female, has had a severe h e a r i n g l o s s s i n c e the age of t e n months. age.  She a c q u i r e d ASL from f r i e n d s a f t e r s i x years of  E . I . attended u n i v e r s i t y and has been t e a c h i n g a t a s c h o o l f o r  the deaf.  She uses both o r a l speech and ASL as means of communication.  (4) B.U. i s a 5 2 - y e a r - o l d male, w i t h a profound loss.  congenital hearing  He a c q u i r e d ASL from f a m i l y members p r i o r t o s i x y e a r s of age.  B.U. has been a c o u n s e l o r a t a community c e n t r e f o r the deaf, and uses ASL as h i s primary means of communication. 31  32  (5) H.O., birth. has  a 13-year-old She  l e a r n e d ASL  female, has had  a profound  a t s c h o o l b e f o r e she was  been a t t e n d i n g a s c h o o l f o r the deaf and  means of  hearing loss since  s i x years  uses ASL  old.  as her  She  primary  communication. The  assumed r e l a t i o n s h i p between the sender and  i n terms of s o c i a l s t a t u s i s shown i n F i g u r e 4. are ranked from h i g h e s t assumed command of  F i g u r e 4.  to lowest  The  each r e c e i v e r  six participants  on the b a s i s of age,  occupation  ASL.  Ranking of the s i x p a r t i c i p a n t s i n terms of age, and command of ASL. (The sender's i n i t i a l s a r e underlined.) Age  Highest  B.U.  occupation  Proficiency  Occupation  Rank  B.U.  B.U.  G. Y.  S.E. G.Y.,  E.I.  E.I.,  E.I.  D.A.  S.E.  G.Y.  Lowest  and  D.A.  S.E.  D.A.  H.O.  H.O.  H. O.  S e l e c t i o n of the Tasks Two  w e l l - s t r u c t u r e d t a s k s , a paraphrase t a s k and  a puzzle  were s e l e c t e d f o r p r e s e n t a t i o n t o each of the f i v e r e c e i v e r s . i n t r o d u c t i o n to each of these main t a s k s was i n s t r u c t i o n task. participation. sender was The  to generate  of t a s k s was  The  counted s e p a r a t e l y as  an  added to e l i c i t r e c e i v e r  i n s t r u c t i o n task was  at l i b e r t y  schedule (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)  The  A q u e s t i o n task was  task,  low i n s t r u c t u r e , i . e . the  both form and  content  of the message.  the same f o r a l l r e c e i v e r s .  Instruction 1 Paraphrase 1 Question 1 Paraphrase 2 Question 2 Instruction 2 Puzzle task  Paraphrase t a s k The Treasury  theme of a s h o r t s t o r y found  of Humor and  i n the 1955  Toastmaster's Handbook was  i t s contemporary a p p e a l .  The  s t o r y was  e d i t i o n of A  modified  to i n c r e a s e  s e l e c t e d because i t c o n t a i n e d  a  33 wide range of l i n g u i s t i c  components t h a t would r e q u i r e a s i g n e r to  a v a r i e t y of s t r u c t u r a l m o d i f i c a t i o n s E n g l i s h v e r s i o n i n Appendix The  sender was  before he was that he was with  The  g i v e n a copy of the s t o r y to review two i t to the r e c e i v e r s .  to memorize the s t o r y , but  d i v i d e d i n t o two  i n t e r v a l provided  weeks  He was  informed  r a t h e r to become f a m i l i a r  i t so that he c o u l d paraphrase the content  s t o r y was  s t o r y appears i n i t s  B.  r e q u i r e d to present  not  of ASL.  use  on p r e s e n t a t i o n .  p a r t s a t a l o g i c a l break i n the p l o t .  the o p p o r t u n i t y  f o r r e c e i v e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and  The This will  be f u r t h e r d e l i n e a t e d i n the d e s c r i p t i o n of the Q u e s t i o n Task.  Puzzle  task In t h i s t a s k , the sender was  r e q u i r e d to guide the r e c e i v e r  through i n s t r u c t i o n s which l e d to c o m p l e t i o n of a p u z z l e . was  a Soma cube, a set of p l a s t i c b l o c k s  representing  The  puzzle  different  p o s s i b l e combinations of f o u r s m a l l cubes which, when arranged c o r r e c t l y , formed a t h r e e i n c h cube. three  Each shape was  c o l o u r s to a i d the sender's d e s c r i p t i o n .  the key  to c o m p l e t i o n of the p u z z l e  two  The  p a i n t e d one sender was  weeks p r i o r to the  of  given  presentation  so that he c o u l d become f a m i l i a r w i t h the p r e s c r i b e d method of c o n s t r u c t i n g the  cube.  Question t a s k , 1 and Two  2  questions  were i n s e r t e d i n t o the Paraphrase Task i n order  to c r e a t e a more communicatively n a t u r a l i n t e r a c t i o n .  The  t u r n - t a k i n g ensured t h a t the sender would have an a c t i v e thereby r e l i e v i n g him  of some of the communication l o a d .  r e v e r s i n g the r o l e of sender and  r e c e i v e r allowed  to confirm or r e a d j u s t h i s h y p o t h e s i s p r o f i c i e n c y and  s t y l e of s i g n i n g .  the sender, but he was address the p r e c e d i n g was  segment of the s t o r y .  partner, In a d d i t i o n ,  the o r i g i n a l  his  Sample q u e s t i o n s  f r e e to a l t e r them.  r e q u i r e d to respond i n ASL  appear i n Appendix  regarding  element of  partner's were p r o v i d e d  Each q u e s t i o n was The  t o the q u e s t i o n .  sender  for  to  receiver-turned-sender The  sample  questions  B.  I n s t r u c t i o n t a s k s , 1 and In t h i s task the  2 sender was  the nature of the i n t e r a c t i o n and  asked to e x p l a i n to the r e c e i v e r  the r o l e s t h a t each of them would  34  adopt.  For example, i n I n s t r u c t i o n I , the r e c e i v e r was  she would be r e q u i r e d to answer two story.  one  i n the middle and  In I n s t r u c t i o n 2, the r e c e i v e r was  asked to manipulate the p i e c e s sender's i n s t r u c t i o n s .  own  The  f o r the  one  elicit  He was  t a s k s ) to each r e c e i v e r i n one as f o l l o w s : (3) E . I . ,  G.Y.  The  and  (5)  s t u d i o where each The  sessions  the complete program (seven  sitting.  The  order  of p r e s e n t a t i o n  to (1) D.A.,  (2)  crew arranged the cameras. by a d i s t a n c e  their  Each p a r t i c i p a n t s a t  of f o u r f e e t .  The  chairs  squarely.  White, 1" plumbicon s t u d i o cameras were f o c u s s e d  the p a r t i c i p a n t s , one other  p r o v i d i n g a s t r a i g h t - o n view of the sender,  p r o v i d i n g a s t r a i g h t - o n view of the r e c e i v e r .  The  participants.  A l l the f i l m i n g was  c o n t r o l l e d by  experienced producer from a booth a d j o i n i n g the  studio.  views were arranged on a d i a g o n a l l y s p l i t - s c r e e n . were taped on a Sony 8650 1/2" in  the  studio during Following  dubbed onto a JVC and  the  VTR.  The  space  A l l five  two  camera  sessions was  present  a l l s e s s i o n s , cued the p r i n c i p a l s i g n e r to  Cassette  a Panasonic NV8310 VHS  time c l o c k generator was  u s i n g a Richmond H i l l  lOOths of  was  2004 Video Switcher A video  digital  dubbing to i n s e r t , i n the bottom  of the p i c t u r e , a d i g i t a l account of the time of each s e s s i o n i n minutes, seconds and  begin.  the o r i g i n a l tape  Video-Cassette Recorder.  used d u r i n g  the  an  The  i n v e s t i g a t o r , who  c o l l e c t i o n of a l l the d a t a ,  on  representation  from both cameras encompassed the complete range of the s i g n i n g of the two  was  S.E.,  given  were o r i e n t e d so t h a t the p a r t i c i p a n t s were f a c i n g each o t h e r Ampex B l a c k and  to  B.U.  i n a low-backed c h a i r separated  Two  the  content.  p a r t i c i p a n t s were brought i n t o the s t u d i o and  p o s i t i o n s , w h i l e the  to both  Data  the p r i n c i p a l sender signed  (4) H.O.,  not  2 were expected  videotaped separately.  were planned so t h a t the sender signed  be  the  2 was  In c o n t r a s t  F i v e s e s s i o n s were arranged i n a r e c o r d i n g r e c e i v e r , was  the  encouraged to e x p l a i n i n h i s  Tasks, I n s t r u c t i o n 1 and  C o l l e c t i o n of the  and  or she would  content of I n s t r u c t i o n s 1 and  more widespread v a r i a t i o n i n both form and  dyad, sender and  of  of the p u z z l e w h i l e f o l l o w i n g  sender.  the P u z z l e  at the end  t o l d t h a t he  words what would t r a n s p i r e i n the s e s s i o n .  Paraphrase and  or  to watch the s t o r y t h a t the sender would s i g n  questions,  formally provided  t o l d t h a t he  seconds.  35  T r a n s c r i p t i o n of t h e Data Each s e s s i o n was viewed on a 19" t e l e v i s i o n monitor which was connected t o a JVC HR6700U Video C a s s e t t e R e c o r d e r . was  The playback mode  equipped w i t h a slow-motion c o n t r o l which enabled t h e viewer t o  a l t e r the speed of the tape. Each signed  segment was t r a n s c r i b e d  t r a n s c r i b e r , a c o n g e n i t a l l y deaf u n i v e r s i t y and o r a l speech i n d a i l y communication. f i v e main components:  s e p a r a t e l y by t h e p r i n c i p a l student who uses both ASL  The t r a n s c r i p t i o n  ( 1 ) An A S L - t o - E n g l i s h l i t e r a l  included  t r a n s c r i p t i o n of  each s i g n was made u s i n g part of the n o t a t i o n a l system o u t l i n e d i n Klima & B e l l u g i (1979).  See Appendix A.  ( 2 ) The b o u n d a r i e s of each  signed u t t e r a n c e were i d e n t i f i e d by s p e c i f y i n g i n the c o r p u s .  the n a t u r e of the pauses  A n o t a t i o n a l system based on C o v i n g t o n (1973) was  adopted f o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the pauses.  See Appendix A.  ( 3 ) The  d u r a t i o n of each u t t e r a n c e , measured t o t h e n e a r e s t t e n t h of a second was  recorded.  (4) The d u r a t i o n of t h e pauses between u t t e r a n c e s ,  measured to the n e a r e s t t e n t h of a second was r e c o r d e d . g l o s s was p r o v i d e d f o r a l l signed The p r i n c i p a l segment.  ( 5 ) An E n g l i s h  utterances.  t r a n s c r i b e r viewed each s e s s i o n , segment by  She approached t h e task by t r y i n g  to l o c a t e the general  meaning of the s i g n s , and then proceded t o e s t a b l i s h u t t e r a n c e boundaries and p r o v i d e the l i t e r a l Periodic r e l i a b i l i t y  t r a n s c r i p t i o n and E n g l i s h  checks performed by t h e p r i n c i p a l  gloss.  investigator  i n c l u d e d u t t e r a n c e and segment t r a n s c r i p t i o n s and j u n c t u r e comparisons. Agreement between the p r i n c i p a l t r a n s c r i b e r and the i n v e s t i g a t o r on the ASL-to E n g l i s h t r a n s c r i p t i o n and u t t e r a n c e boundaries was g r e a t e r than 90%.  A n a l y s i s of the Data From the l i t e r a l  t r a n s c r i p t i o n , each u t t e r a n c e was examined f o r  evidence c o n c e r n i n g the f o l l o w i n g seven performance  parameters:  (1) L e x i c o n - counts were made of t h e number of d i f f e r e n t  s i g n s and  f i n g e r s p e l l e d words and the t o t a l number of s i g n s and f i n g e r s p e l l e d words present i n each u t t e r a n c e ^ .  A t y p e : t o k e n r a t i o was c a l c u l a t e d  For the remainder of t h i s r e p o r t , r e f e r e n c e t o number of d i f f e r e n t s i g n s and number of t o t a l s i g n s w i l l a l s o i n c l u d e the number of f i n g e r s p e l l e d words.  36  on the b a s i s of these two measurements to determine f l e x i b i l i t y i n c h o i c e of l e x i c a l i t e m s . (2) Morphology  - The number of i n c o r p o r a t i o n s , reduced forms and  i n d e x i c a l r e f e r e n c e s were counted i n each u t t e r a n c e .  The raw numbers  were then c o n v e r t e d t o a percentage based on the t o t a l number of s i g n s . (3) Syntax - C a l c u l a t i o n s were made of the t o t a l number of u t t e r a n c e s , number of p r o p o s i t i o n s o r d i f f e r e n t  i d e a s i n each u t t e r a n c e , number of  s i g n s per p r o p o s i t i o n , and the number of r e p e t i t i o n s per u t t e r a n c e . R e p e t i t i o n s i n c l u d e d exact d u p l i c a t i o n of l e x i c a l items and/or phrases, but  not r e s t r u c t u r i n g of an i d e a .  (4) Rate - Measurements were taken of the t o t a l d u r a t i o n of each u t t e r a n c e to the n e a r e s t t e n t h of a second, both w i t h and without pauses, as w e l l as the d u r a t i o n of pauses between u t t e r a n c e s .  In  a d d i t i o n , the number of s i g n s per second and the number of p r o p o s i t i o n s per  second were c a l c u l a t e d .  (5) H e a d t i l t - Counts were made of the t o t a l number of h e a d t i l t s present i n each u t t e r a n c e i n c l u d i n g head t i l t s the  signer's l e f t  and to the s i g n e r ' s r i g h t .  d i r e c t i o n of the h e a d t i l t  forward, backward, t o Percentages of the  per t o t a l number of t i l t s were c a l c u l a t e d .  (6) Body Movement - Counts were taken of the number of s h o u l d e r r a i s e s , the  number of body t u r n s ; from a n e u t r a l p o s i t i o n to the s i g n e r ' s  and/or r i g h t , and the number of complete changes from the l e f t  i n body i n c l i n a t i o n ;  to the r i g h t and/or from the r i g h t to the l e f t .  (7) Amplitude - The number of times the s i g n e r ' s hands extended the  left  beyond  normal s i g n i n g a r e a were counted. Two a d d i t i o n a l parameters; f a c i a l e x p r e s s i o n and eye gaze were  planned f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the a n a l y s i s .  However, the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n on  v i d e o t a p e d i d not a l l o w f o r a c l e a r view of the f a c i a l a r e a of the participants. In  a d d i t i o n to c o u n t s , percentages and p r o p o r t i o n s based on  each u t t e r a n c e s e p a r a t e l y , s c o r e s f o r each performance parameter were grouped by task and by r e c e i v e r .  Means and standard d e v i a t i o n s were  d e r i v e d f o r each performance parameter a c r o s s r e c e i v e r s , f o r each task separately.  Task scores f o r each r e c e i v e r were then compared to the  mean. The a n a l y s i s y i e l d s the f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n :  (1) i d e n t i -  f i c a t i o n of v a r i a n t s w i t h i n each of the seven ASL performance  37  parameters, (2) an e x p l i c i t  account of the nature  of l i n g u i s t i c and  p a r a l i n g u i s t i c v a r i a t i o n a c r o s s tasks and a c r o s s r e c e i v e r s , and (3) an i n d i c a t i o n of how observed  v a r i a t i o n r e l a t e s to the s o c i a l  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the r e c e i v e r s .  Hypotheses  Task v a r i a b l e s I t was f e l t  t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s between tasks would d i s c l o s e  elements of ASL t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e formal and i n f o r m a l s i g n i n g . example, u t t e r a n c e s  For  i n the I n s t r u c t i o n s (form and content e s t a b l i s h e d  by the sender) might have a h i g h e r  type-token  ratio for lexical  items,  more p r o p o s i t i o n s per u t t e r a n c e , a f a s t e r r a t e of p r o d u c t i o n and l e s s use  of the non-sign  channels  than the more formal Paraphrase.  Further-  more, d i f f e r e n c e s may a r i s e between p a r t s of the Paraphrase due to semantic content  of the segments and/or a change i n the sender's hypo-  t h e s i s r e g a r d i n g the r e c e i v e r ' s p r o f i c i e n c y i n ASL.  Receiver v a r i a b l e s It was p r e d i c t e d that each of the s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s , age, o c c u p a t i o n and assumed p r o f i c i e n c y i n ASL, would c o n t r i b u t e to a d i f f e r e n t i a l p r o f i l e based on the amount of use of each performance parameter.  In g e n e r a l , the expected  p r o f i l e f o r each r e c e i v e r may be  c h a r a c t e r i z e d as f o l l o w s : (1) L e x i c o n - From h i g h e s t to lowest  ranking r e c e i v e r , t h e r e w i l l be an  i n c r e a s e i n the t o t a l number of s i g n s used and a decrease type:token  ratio.  (2) Morphology - From h i g h e s t to lowest a decrease  ranking r e c e i v e r , t h e r e w i l l be  i n the use of a l l the m o r p h o l o g i c a l  (3) Syntax - From h i g h e s t to lowest decrease  i n the  ranking  devices.  r e c e i v e r , t h e r e w i l l be a  i n number of p r o p o s i t i o n s per u t t e r a n c e and number of s i g n s  per p r o p o s i t i o n , and an i n c r e a s e i n number of r e p e t i t i o n s p e r utterance. (4) Rate - From h i g h e s t to lower ranking r e c e i v e r , t h e r e w i l l be an i n c r e a s e i n d u r a t i o n of u t t e r a n c e s , and a decrease per second and number of p r o p o s i t i o n s per second.  i n number of s i g n s  38  (5) H e a d t i l t , (6) Body Movement, and (7) Amplitude - From h i g h e s t to lowest r a n k i n g r e c e i v e r , t h e r e w i l l be an i n c r e a s e i n the use of a l l elements.  CHAPTER 3 RESULTS AND  DISCUSSION  Introduction For t h i s t h e s i s , data from t h r e e of the o r i g i n a l seven tasks were a n a l y z e d : Paraphrase  I n s t r u c t i o n 1 ( t a s k 1 ) , Paraphrase  2 (task 4).  U n i n t e r p r e t e d counts  parameters d e f i n e d i n Chapter R e s u l t s a r e presented parameters.  1 ( t a s k 2 ) , and  of each of the performance  3 are t a b u l a t e d i n Appendix by s i g n and nonsign  performance  While the emphasis i s on r e c e i v e r v a r i a b l e s ,  d i f f e r e n c e s are a l s o d i s c u s s e d .  task  F o l l o w i n g t h i s , r e s u l t s are  a c c o r d i n g to r e c e i v e r v a r i a b l e s , and t a b l e s R e c e i v e r s are l i s t e d  C.  summarized  then a c c o r d i n g to t a s k .  (from l e f t  In a l l  to r i g h t ) i n order of  p r e s e n t a t i o n by Sender.  Performance Parameters  Lexicon  6 The  t o t a l number of s i g n s signed by the Sender  R e c e i v e r i n each task i s shown i n Table 1.  The  to each  t o t a l counts  across  tasks show t h a t the Sender signed the most i n d i v i d u a l s i g n s (tokens) to H.O.,  the lowest  o c c u p a t i o n and to E . I . , who variables.  ranked  R e c e i v e r on a l l three v a r i a b l e s of  signing proficiency  i s adjacent  (see F i g u r e 4 ) , and  age,  the fewest  to or equal w i t h the Sender on a l l three  T o t a l s i g n s presented  to H.O.  and  E . I . were, r e s p e c t i v e l y ,  w e l l above and w e l l below the mean number of s i g n s , w h i l e t o t a l presented extent and was  to D.A.,  and  B.U.  signs  were not f a r from the mean.  The  d i r e c t i o n of the d i f f e r e n c e from the mean f o r H.O.  and  E.I.  on anology  with  maintained  S.E.  signs  i n each t a s k .  In t h i s c h a p t e r , Sender and R e c e i v e r are c a p i t a l i z e d Speaker and Hearer i n d i s c u s s i o n of speech a c t s . 39  40  Table 1.  T o t a l Number of Signs (Tokens) Used by Sender to Each R e c e i v e r i n Each Task.  Receiver X  D.A.  S.E.  E.I.  H.O.  B.U.  Instruction 1  26  47  26  52  42  38.6  Paraphrase  1  66  60  51  79  66  64.4  Paraphrase  2  78  82  70  81  75  77.2  170  189  149  212  183  180.6  Task  T o t a l Across  Tasks  Table 1 a l s o shows t h a t the I n s t r u c t i o n task was b r i e f e r than Paraphrase tasks:  1 or 2.  I n s t r u c t i o n 1 informed  T h i s simply r e f l e c t s the nature of the R e c e i v e r t h a t a s t o r y would be  and a q u e s t i o n would be asked, w h i l e Paraphrase story i t s e l f .  The  considerably  1 and  the  told  2 c o n s t i t u t e d the  r e l a t i v e l y equal s i z e of Paraphrase  1 and  Paraphrase  2 shows t h a t the Sender chose to break the s t o r y i n about the middle order to address  a q u e s t i o n to the R e c e i v e r .  These f a c t s are  reflected  i n the r e l a t i v e number of s i g n s f o r a l l f i v e R e c e i v e r s , i n s p i t e of Receiver-differences The  r a t i o i n s i g n i n g each task to each  R e c e i v e r i s d i s p l a y e d i n Table 2. items.  T h i s i s a measure of f l e x i b i l i t y  The most dramatic  In Paraphrase  and  E.I.  T h i s i s p r e d i c t e d f o r H.O.,  1 t h e r e i s a lower  but i t i s not so dramatic.  type:token  in  Receiver d i f f e r e n c e i s  seen i n the I n s t r u c t i o n t a s k , where t h e r e i s a very low r a t i o f o r H.O.  the  observed.  Sender's type:token  c h o i c e of v o c a b u l a r y  in  type:token  but not f o r E . I .  r a t i o f o r H.O.  and  N o t i c e t h a t t h i s measure does not  S.E., vary  s y s t e m a t i c a l l y a c c o r d i n g to R e c e i v e r a c r o s s tasks ( a l t h o u g h E . I . and S.E.  are adjacent  and H.O.  and  to each o t h e r on a l l t h r e e R e c e i v e r ranking  E . I . and  e x h i b i t e d a lower  S.E.  are a l l female).  type:token  O v e r a l l , the Sender  r a t i o i n h i s s i g n i n g to H.O.  s i g n i n g to the other f o u r R e c e i v e r s .  scales,  than i n h i s  41  Sender's Type:Token  Table 2.  R a t i o to Each R e c e i v e r i n Each Task.  Receiver D.A.  Task  S.E.  H.O.  E.I.  B.U.  Instruction 1  0.98  0.81  0.58  0.52  0.81  Paraphrase 1  0.80  0.73  0.82  0.70  0.85  Paraphrase 2  0.82  0.83  0.84  0.81  0.80  A c r o s s Tasks  0.83  0.79  0.79  0.69  0.82  An  i n t e r e s t i n g task d i f f e r e n c e can be seen h e r e .  considerably  more v a r i a t i o n i n the type:token r a t i o to d i f f e r e n t  R e c e i v e r s i n the I n s t r u c t i o n t a s k .  This v a r i a t i o n i s l e v e l l e d at a  f a i r l y h i g h type:token r a t i o i n the Paraphrase t a s k s . particularly  There i s  This i s  i n t e r e s t i n g i n the case of Paraphrase 2, because the  type:token r a t i o i s v e r y u n i f o r m a c r o s s R e c e i v e r s i n s p i t e of the feedback the Sender has j u s t had ( t a s k 3, not reported i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s that overrides  the n a r r a t i v e  Receiver v a r i a b l e s .  Paraphrase 2 r e s u l t s i s that  here).  nature of the Paraphrase tasks  An a l t e r n a t e  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the  the Sender r e v i s e d h i s o r i g i n a l e s t i m a t e  of R e c e i v e r p r o f i c i e n c y upwards on the b a s i s  of feedback, so that i n  none of the f i v e cases d i d an assessment of low R e c e i v e r constrain  One  proficiency  the second part of the n a r r a t i v e .  Morphology The signing  degree to which the Sender used i n c o r p o r a t i o n  i s shown i n Table 3.  The p r o p o r t i o n  of i n c o r p o r a t i o n  s m a l l a c t u a l counts, between one and t e n i n c o r p o r a t i o n s to any one R e c e i v e r ( s e e Appendix C ) .  i n his  Incorporation  reflects  i n any one task  r e s u l t s i n a more  complex s i g n , and perhaps, l e s s e x p l i c i t n e s s f o r someone not p r o f i c i e n t in  signing.  42  Table 3.  P r o p o r t i o n of I n c o r p o r a t i o n s to T o t a l Signs Used by Sender w i t h Each R e c e i v e r i n Each Task.  Receiver S.E.  D.A.  Task  H.O.  E.I.  B.U.  X  Instruction 1  0.077  0.043  0.038  0.019  0.024  0.040  Paraphrase  1  0.076  0.100  0.059  0.051  0.091  0.075  Paraphrase  2  0.077  0.073  0.071  0.123  0.053  0.079  Tasks  0.077  0.074  0.061  0.071  0.060  0.069  Across  Table 3 i n d i c a t e s t h a t the Sender d i d not s y s t e m a t i c a l l y modify the degree of i n c o r p o r a t i o n i n h i s s i g n i n g on the b a s i s of a R e c e i v e r variable.  I f Paraphrase  2 has a l e v e l l i n g  e f f e c t , as d i s c u s s e d above,  the r e s u l t s can be i n t e r p r e t e d d i f f e r e n t l y .  The p r o p o r t i o n of  i n c o r p o r a t i o n s signed to H.O. i s c l e a r l y the lowest tasks measured. i n Chapter  2.  i n the f i r s t  two  T h i s i s p r e d i c t e d by the R e c e i v e r v a r i a b l e s o u t l i n e d I t i s more d i f f i c u l t  t o see why the Sender used so few  i n c o r p o r a t i o n s i n h i s s i g n i n g of I n s t r u c t i o n 1 to B.U. T h i s might be p a r t i a l l y e x p l a i n e d by a task d i f f e r e n c e .  The  Sender signed p r o p o r t i o n a l l y fewer i n c o r p o r a t i o n s i n the I n s t r u c t i o n task t o a l l R e c e i v e r s except from an o r d e r e f f e c t first  sender  The p r o p o r t i o n f o r D.A. may  result  (not seen i n o t h e r measures), s i n c e t h i s was the  task to the f i r s t The  D.A.  R e c e i v e r i n the study.  p r o p o r t i o n of reduced  forms i s shown i n Table 4.  The  signed very few of these, between zero and f o u r to each R e c e i v e r  i n each t a s k .  A slight  task d i f f e r e n c e can be seen;  forms were signed to each r e c e i v e r except H.O., Paraphrase  2.  T h i s i s the same l e v e l l i n g  R e c e i v e r d i f f e r e n c e s were not s y s t e m a t i c .  three  reduced  who R e c e i v e r f o u r , i n  seen i n other measures.  43  Table 4.  P r o p o r t i o n of Reduced Forms to T o t a l Signs Used by Sender w i t h Each R e c e i v e r i n Each Task.  Receiver Task  D.A.  S.E.  —  —  0.077  0.019  0.024  Paraphrase 1  0.015  —  —  0.038  0.030  Paraphrase 2  0.038  0.037  0.057  0.037  0.040  Across  0.024  0.016  0.040  0.033  0.033  Instruction 1  Tasks  E.I.  H.O.  Amount of i n d e x i c a l r e f e r e n c e v a r i e d a c c o r d i n g according  to R e c e i v e r .  T h i s i s shown i n Table 5.  B.U.  to task, but not  P r o p o r t i o n of  i n d e x i c a l r e f e r e n c e was f a i r l y h i g h i n the I n s t r u c t i o n s , where the Sender e x p l a i n e d the nature  of the p r e s e n t a t i o n and the r o l e s that  he and the R e c e i v e r would p l a y .  Table 5.  Here the Sender used e x p l i c i t  first  P r o p o r t i o n of I n d e x i c a l References to T o t a l Signs Used by Sender w i t h Each R e c e i v e r i n Each Task.  Receiver Task  D.A.  S.E.  E.I.  H.O.  B.U.  X  Instruction 1  0.308  0.298  0.346  0.269  0.214  0.287  Paraphrase 1  0.015  —  —  —  —  0.003  Paraphrase 2  0.051  0.061  0.071  0.037  0.067  0.057  Across  0.077  0.101  0.095  0.080  0.077  0.086  Tasks  both  44  and  second person pronouns.  I n t e r e s t i n g l y , these pronouns can  be  i n c o r p o r a t e d i n verb s i g n s , but i t appears t h a t the Sender chose not use  t h i s d e v i c e i n the I n s t r u c t i o n s i n the i n t e r e s t of c l a r i t y .  i n d e x i c a l r e f e r e n c e s were not n e cessary third-person narrative.  i n the Paraphrase,  (However many o t h e r s i g n s i n the  were s u b j e c t e d to i n c o r p o r a t i o n , e.g.  to  These  which was  a  Paraphrase  STOP-CAR and TWO-WEEK.)  Syntax The Utterance  number of u t t e r a n c e s signed i s d i s p l a y e d i n Table  counts  are o n l y p a r t i a l l y p a r a l l e l  d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r (see Table 1 ) . i n task d i f f e r e n c e s : u t t e r a n c e s , Paraphrase the two  Paraphrase  fewest  the most.  s i g n s and  However, the d i f f e r e n c e between This  d i f f e r e n c e which w i l l be d i s c u s s e d l a t e r .  show t h a t the most u t t e r a n c e s were signed to H.O.,  to E . I .  Table 1 ) .  the fewest  tasks i s g r e a t e r i n the u t t e r a n c e count.  r e f l e c t s a complexity t a s k s , counts  to the s i g n counts  For example, the same r a n k i n g i s seen  I n s t r u c t i o n 1 has 2 has  6.  Across the  T h i s p a r a l l e l s the r e s u l t s on the s i g n measure (see  Otherwise,  s y s t e m a t i c R e c e i v e r d i f f e r e n c e s cannot  be  seen.  Table 6.  T o t a l Number of U t t e r a n c e s i n Each Task.  Signed  by Sender to Each R e c e i v e r  Receiver X  D.A.  S. E.  E.I.  H.O.  B.U.  Instruction 1  4  5  2  2  4  3.4  Paraphrase  1  8  5  5  6  6  6.0  Paraphrase  2  6  9  9  13  8  9.0  Tasks  18  19  16  21  18  18.4  Task  Across  45  Table  7.  Number of P r o p o s i t i o n s Per U t t e r a n c e R e c e i v e r i n Each Task.  Signed  by Sender to Each  Receiver S.E.  D.A.  Task  B.U.  H.O.  E.I.  Instruction 1  1.3  2.2  3.5  5.5  1.8  Paraphrase 1  1.8  2.8  2.2  3.2  2.3  Paraphrase 2  3.8  2.9  2.7  2.0  2.4  Across  2.3  2.7  2.6  2.7  2.2  Tasks  Table 7 shows the number of p r o p o s i t i o n s per u t t e r a n c e to each R e c e i v e r  i n each t a s k .  These r e s u l t s d i s c o n f i r m the p r e d i c t i o n  that the number of p r o p o s i t i o n s per u t t e r a n c e w i l l decrease h i g h e s t t o lowest  ranking R e c e i v e r .  measure i s presented  i n F i g u r e 5.  The R e c e i v e r  from  ranking on t h i s  T h i s f i g u r e shows that there i s no  c o n s i s t e n c y i n the ranking a c r o s s the three t a s k s . rankings matches the rankings a c c o r d i n g  F i g u r e 5.  signed  None of these  to s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s i n F i g u r e 4.  Ranking of R e c e i v e r s , from h i g h to low, on the b a s i s of number of p r o p o s i t i o n s per u t t e r a n c e i n each t a s k .  Paraphrase 2  Across  Instruction 1  Paraphrase 1  H.O.  H.O.  D. A.  H.O.,  E.I.  S.E.  S.E.  E.I.  S.E.  B.U.  E. I .  D.A.  B.U.  E.I.  B.U.  B.U.  D.A.  D.A.  H.O.  Tasks S.E.  46  Three s u b j e c t s (D.A., S.E. and B.U.)  show a c o n s i s t e n t task  d i f f e r e n c e , w i t h a very s m a l l i n c r e a s e i n the number of p r o p o s i t i o n s per u t t e r a n c e i n each s u c c e s s i v e t a s k , but the d i f f e r e n c e i s too s m a l l to i n t e r p r e t .  The f a i l u r e to f i n d any s y s t e m a t i c d i f f e r e n c e s a c r o s s  R e c e i v e r s o r t a s k s l e a d s to the q u e s t i o n of whether t h i s measure i s a complexity  measure i n ASL i n the same way i t i s i n v o c a l languages.  Number of s i g n s per u t t e r a n c e was not a u s e f u l measure of complexity  i n t h i s study because i t i s l i n k e d w i t h the p r o p o s i t i o n s per  u t t e r a n c e data  just discussed.  of s i g n s per p r o p o s i t i o n .  A more i n f o r m a t i v e measure was  number  These data a r e s u p p l i e d i n Table 8.  Both  R e c e i v e r and t a s k d i f f e r e n c e s can be seen. In each task, and a c r o s s t a s k s , the g r e a t e s t number of s i g n s per p r o p o s t i o n were signed to B.U., w i t h D.A. c l o s e behind. of s i g n s per p r o p o s i t i o n i s a t r u e complexity per p r o p o s i t i o n o r sentence i s c o n s i d e r e d would p r e d i c t t h i s r e s u l t f o r B.U. which D.A. i s a d j a c e n t (Figure 4 ) .  measure i n ASL, as words  to be i n spoken languages, we  The only s o c i a l v a r i a b l e ranking i n  to B.U. i s the ranking a c c o r d i n g to o c c u p a t i o n  The other three s u b j e c t s are ranked v a r i a b l y on t h i s  measure, except and  I f number  t h a t E . I . i s ranked lowest  i n two t a s k s ( I n s t r u c t i o n 1  Paraphrase 2) and when the measure i s made a c r o s s a l l three  Table 8.  Number of Signs Per P r o p o s i t i o n Signed R e c e i v e r i n Each Task.  tasks.  by Sender to Each  Receiver X  S.E.  E.I.  Instruction 1  5.2  4.3  3.7  4.7  6.0  4.8  Paraphrase 1  4.7  4.3  4.6  4.2  4.9  4.5  Paraphrase 2  3.4  3.2  2.9  3.1  3.9  3.3  Across  4.1  3.7  3.6  3.8  4.6  4.0  Tasks  H.O.  B.U.  D.A.  Task  47  Since E . I . ranks w i t h D.A. terras of age occupation  and  and  on the o c c u p a t i o n  s c a l e , and  above him  s i g n i n g p r o f i c i e n c y , the s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s of  s i g n i n g p r o f i c i e n c y do not  of number of s i g n s per  in  age,  p r e d i c t the r a n k i n g  i n terms  p r o p o s i t i o n , except p o s s i b l y f o r B.U.  It i s  i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t these r e s u l t s p a r a l l e l the r e s u l t s on another complexity measure, type:token r a t i o ; the t h r e e are female.  The  lowest ranked  a c t u a l number d i f f e r e n c e s on which the R e c e i v e r s  ranked on t h i s measure are q u i t e s m a l l and These r e s u l t s should  be i n t e r p r e t e d  Across R e c e i v e r s ,  p r o b a b l y not  significant.  the Sender tended t o decrease the number of This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y  n o t i c e a b l e i n Paraphrase 2, where t h i s number i s q u i t e low As  dialogue.  Sender repeated p r o p o s i t i o n s , c o m p l e t e l y or i n p a r t , to  v a r y i n g degrees i n the d i f f e r e n t task p r e s e n t a t i o n s . indicates a reduction  Repetition  i n c o m p l e x i t y ; i . e . number of unique  to t o t a l number of p r o p o s i t i o n s y i e l d s a r a t i o analogous t o type:token r a t i o .  T h i s r a t i o i s presented i n T a b l e 9.  shows t h a t , a l t h o u g h t h e r e are not  Table 9.  for a l l  i n o t h e r measures, t h i s i s a t t r i b u t e d t o c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  of n a r r a t i v e , p a r t i c u l a r l y when i t i n c l u d e s The  were  accordingly.  s i g n s per p r o p o s i t i o n i n each subsequent t a s k .  Receivers.  Receivers  Proportion  consistent Receiver  of Unique to T o t a l  propositions the  Table 9 c l e a r l y d i f f e r e n c e s from  Propositions.  Receiver Task  D.A.  S.E.  E.I.  H.O.  B.U.  Instruction 1  0.60  0.91  0.57  0.64  0.86  Paraphrase 1  0.86  0.71  0.91  0.58  1.00  Paraphrase 2  0.87  0.81  0.88  0.54  0.90  Across Tasks  0.83  0.80  0.83  0.57  0.93  48  one  i n d i v i d u a l task to another,  unique p r o p o s i t i o n s was  a c r o s s tasks the h i g h e s t p r o p o r t i o n of  s i g n e d to B.U.,  the lowest  to H.O.  R e c e i v e r s a r e ordered a c c o r d i n g to a c r o s s - t a s k r a t i o , the  If resulting  rank order e x a c t l y matches the rank order based on o c c u p a t i o n s t a t u s (see F i g u r e 4 ) .  With the e x c e p t i o n of H.O.'s r a t i o , which i s  d r a m a t i c a l l y lower  than the o t h e r s , R e c e i v e r r a t i o s a r e  c o n s i s t e n t i n Paraphrase  2.  T h i s i s compatible  relatively  w i t h r e s u l t s based  on  other measures. Table 10 p r e s e n t s the r e p e t i t i o n measure i n a d i f f e r e n t In t h i s t a b l e we  see a p a r t i a l e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n s per  u t t e r a n c e r e s u l t s — p u r p o r t e d l y a complexity m e a s u r e — d i s c u s s e d The  l a r g e number of u t t e r a n c e s , p r o p o s i t i o n s , and  addressed  to H.O.  a p p a r e n t l y i n c l u d e s , and  a h i g h degree of r e p e t i t i o n .  was  S i g n i n g to the other three R e c e i v e r s was r e d u c t i o n of complexity  of c l a r i t y ; being  s i g n s per  earlier.  utterance  i s i n p a r t accounted  q u i t e s i m i l a r on t h i s measure.  p r o v i d e d by r e p e t i t i o n i s i n the  the R e c e i v e r has more chances to understand  interest  the message  Number of R e p e t i t i o n s per U t t e r a n c e .  Receiver B.U.  Task  D.A.  S.E.  E.I.  H.O.  Instruction 1  0.50  0.20  1.50  2.00  0.25  Paraphrase  1  0.25  0.80  0.20  1.33  —  Paraphrase  2  0.50  0.56  0.33  0.92  0.25  Tasks  0.39  0.53  0.44  1.14  0.17  Across  was  markedly n o n r e p e t i t i v e .  signed.  Table 10.  f o r by,  J u s t as the Sender's s i g n i n g to H.O.  very r e p e t i t i v e , h i s s i g n i n g to B.U.  The  way.  49  Rate The Sender's r a t e of s i g n i n g was computed as number of s i g n s per second, i n c l u d i n g pause d u r a t i o n and e x c l u d i n g pause d u r a t i o n . ( T o t a l d u r a t i o n s f o r s i g n i n g and pauses a r e presented  i n Appendix C ) .  The s i g n i n g r a t e s f o r each R e c e i v e r i n each t a s k a r e shown i n T a b l e s and 12.  Very l i t t l e  d i f f e r e n c e c a n be seen i n t h e Sender's r a t e o f  s i g n i n g t o i n d i v i d u a l R e c e i v e r s , w i t h one e x c e p t i o n .  He s i g n e d a t a  f a s t e r r a t e i n a l l t a s k s t o B.U.  Table 11.  Rate of S i g n i n g i n Number of Signs per Second ( I n c l u d i n g Pauses).  Receiver D.A.  S.E.  E.I.  H.O.  B.U.  Instruction 1  1.6  1.7  1.7  1.8  2.0  Paraphrase 1  1.1  1.2  1.1  1.2  1.3  Paraphrase 2  1.3  1.2  1.2  1.2  1.6  Across Tasks  1.3  1.3  1.3  1.3  1.5  Task  Table 12.  Rate of S i g n i n g i n Number of Signs Per Second Pauses).  (Not I n c l u d i n g  Receiver B.U.  D.A.  S.E.  E.I.  H.O.  Instruction 1  1.7  1.8  1.8  1.8  2.2  Paraphrase 1  1.3  1.2  1.2  1.3  1.4  Paraphrase 2  1.4  1.5  1.5  1.4  1.8  Across Tasks  1.4  1.5  1.4  1.5  1.7  Task  50  A c c o r d i n g t o Goldman-Eisler ( c i t e d in  pause time r a t h e r  differing  than s i g n s  per second i s the t r u e i n d i c a t o r of  r a t e s of e x p r e s s i o n .  t h i s study.  i n B e l l u g i , 1972), v a r i a t i o n  T h i s does not appear to be the case i n  A comparison of T a b l e s 11 and 12 shows that  d i r e c t i o n of r a t e d i f f e r e n c e s a c r o s s constant, regardless calculation.  R e c e i v e r s and tasks  of whether pause d u r a t i o n  the extent and remain  i s included  fairly  i n the  A s m a l l d i f f e r e n c e can be seen when the s i g n i n g i n the  two paraphrase tasks a r e compared i n T a b l e 11 and T a b l e 12. s l i g h t l y greater  increase  The  i n r a t e when pauses a r e not i n c l u d e d  i n the  computation may i n d i c a t e t h a t a f a s t e r r a t e of a c t u a l s i g n i n g or increased  pauses accompanied the d i a l o g u e  o r s t o r y c l i m a x i n the second  p a r t of the n a r r a t i v e . In g e n e r a l , the s t o r y .  the i n s t r u c t i o n s were signed  B e l l u g i (1972) r e p o r t s  to be 2.1 s i g n s per second.  the r a t e of signed  In t h i s study, the s i g n i n g  r a t e i n the I n s t r u c t i o n task i s c l o s e r t o , but s t i l l figure.  than  A slower s i g n i n g r a t e may be y e t another c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f  an ASL n a r r a t i v e s t y l e . conversation  at a faster rate  Thus signed  than i s signed  i n s t r u c t i o n s a r e more l i k e  n a r r a t i v e , but they a r e s t i l l  lower than t h i s  signed  different.  conversation The slower  r a t e i n the I n s t r u c t i o n s i n t h i s study may r e f l e c t an i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e i n s i g n i n g r a t e , presence of the v i d e o camera, o r the Sender's d e s i r e t o make the I n s t r u c t i o n s a b s o l u t e l y  c l e a r to h i s  Receivers.  Headtilt The  Sender used more forward and backward than l e f t and r i g h t  h e a d t i l t s i n a l l tasks he  signed  to a l l Receivers.  c o n s i s t e n t l y marked u t t e r a n c e  In the I n s t r u c t i o n s ,  boundaries w i t h forward h e a d t i l t s .  T h i s may be r e f l e c t e d i n the r e l a t i v e l y h i g h p r o p o r t i o n shown i n the I n s t r u c t i o n task i n Table 13.  of h e a d t i l t s  Because both forward and  backward h e a d t i l t s a r e r e p o r t e d l y  used t o mark s y n t a c t i c boundaries,  they a r e combined i n t h i s t a b l e .  The data i n Table 13 r e i n f o r c e t h i s  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of forward and backward h e a d t i l t s , s i n c e the Sender averages about one h e a d t i l t per p r o p o s i t i o n . The  smaller  proportion  the d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n s  of h e a d t i l t s shown i n Table 14 r e f l e c t s  of s i d e and forward-backward h e a d t i l t s .  There  51  T a b l e 13.  Number of Forward and Backward H e a d t i l t s per P r o p o s i t i o n .  Receiver D.A.  S.E.  E.I.  H.O.  B.U.  Instruction 1  1.4  1.3  1.6  1.5  1.7  Paraphrase 1  1.5  0.9  1.2  1.0  1.0  Paraphrase 2  0.7  0.9  0.5  1.0  0.8  A c r o s s Tasks  1.1  1.0  0.8  1.1  1.0  Task  Table 14.  Number of L e f t and Right H e a d t i l t s per P r o p o s i t i o n .  Receiver D.A.  S.E.  E.I.  H.O.  B.U.  Instruction 1  0.4  0.3  0.3  0.3  0.4  Paraphrase 1  0.4  0.6  0.6  0.7  0.4  Paraphrase 2  0.3  0.3  0.2  0.4  0.7  A c r o s s Tasks  0.4  0.4  0.3  0.5  0.5  Task  was a s l i g h t l y h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n due no  t o the d e s c r i p t i o n i n v o l v e d tilts  of h e a d t i l t s i n Paraphrase 1, perhaps i n telling  the s t o r y .  The Sender used  t o the r i g h t i n the I n s t r u c t i o n task ( s e e Appendix C ) . No  systematic Receiver d i f f e r e n c e s  can be seen i n Table 13 o r Table 14.  Body movement Analysis  of body movement i n c l u d e d  body t u r n , and changes i n body i n c l i n a t i o n .  measures of shoulder r a i s e s , O v e r a l l , the Sender used a  52  g r e a t e r number of these nonsign movements w i t h H.O., shoulder r a i s e s .  especially  I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the use of these movements,  however, r e q u i r e s t h a t they be n o r m a l i z e d  i n terms of the number of  u t t e r a n c e s or p r o p o s i t i o n s s i g n e d to each R e c e i v e r .  For t h i s  reason,  the d a t a i n Tables 15, 16 and 17 a r e presented as number of each movement per p r o p o s i t i o n .  Table 15.  Number of Shoulder Ra i s e s per P r o p o s i t i o n .  Receiver D.A.  S.E.  E.I.  H.O.  B.U.  Instruction 1  —  —  0.1  0.4  0.4  Paraphrase  1  0.3  0.4  0.9  0.6  0.4  Paraphrase  2  0.3  0.1  0.2  0.4  0.3  A c r o s s Tasks  0.2  0.2  0.4  0.5  0.4  Task.  Table 16.  Number of Body  Turns per P r o p o s i t i o n .  Receiver D.A.  S.E.  E.I.  H.O.  B.U.  Instruction 1  —  0.1  0.1  —  —  Paraphrase  1  0.6  0.4  0.5  0.3  0.4  Paraphrase  2  0.3  0.2  0.2  0.3  0.2  Tasks  0.4  0.2  0.2  0.2  0.2  Task  Across  53  Table 17.  Number of Changes i n Body I n c l i n a t i o n per P r o p o s i t i o n .  Receiver D.A.  S.E.  E.I.  H.O.  B.U.  Instruction 1  0.6  0.2  0.1  0.3  0.3  Paraphrase  1  —  0.1  0.5  0.1  0.4  Paraphrase  2  0.4  0.3  0.3  0.3  0.3  0.3  0.2  0.3  0.2  0.3  Task  Across  Tasks  Tables 15, 16 and 17 show no s y s t e m a t i c v a r i a t i o n i n shoulder r a i s e s , body turns or changes i n body i n c l i n a t i o n a c c o r d i n g t o R e c e i v e r variables.  A s l i g h t l y h i g h e r number of shoulder r a i s e s to H.O. i s  c o n s i s t e n t w i t h hypotheses about body movement and r e f l e c t s the g r e a t e r a b s o l u t e number mentioned above. A few task d i f f e r e n c e s can be seen i n these measures. Sender used more shoulder r a i s e s i n Paraphrase tasks.  The  1 than i n the other two  T h i s may be r e l a t e d t o the d e s c r i p t i v e content of the f i r s t  p a r t of the n a r r a t i v e , s i n c e s h o u l d e r r a i s e s a r e o f t e n used i n ASL t o i n d i c a t e q u a n t i t a t i v e n o t i o n s such as the s i z e of an o b j e c t , person or event, o r e x t e n t of a q u a l i t y .  The s t o r y i n c l u d e d concepts  'very b e a u t i f u l ' and ' l i t t l e house.'  such as  The o v e r a l l low r a t e of shoulder  r a i s e s i n the I n s t r u c t i o n task can be e x p l a i n e d on these grounds ( s e e Table 1 5 ) . Body t u r n s , l i k e  s h o u l d e r r a i s e s , were very i n f r e q u e n t i n the  I n s t r u c t i o n t a s k and most f r e q u e n t i n Paraphrase  1 (see Table 1 6 ) .  Changes i n body i n c l i n a t i o n were c o n s i s t e n t a c r o s s R e c e i v e r s i n Paraphrase  2 (see Table 17).  The Sender seemed t o be u s i n g a s t y l e of  s i g n i n g t y p i c a l of quoting d i r e c t d i a l o g u e . the f i r s t  p a r t y , he turned t o one s i d e .  the r o l e of  When he responded i n the  second r o l e , he changed h i s body o r i e n t a t i o n . to  When he took  This device i s s i m i l a r  " i n d e x i n g , " t h a t i s , a s s i g n i n g a person or o b j e c t a p l a c e i n space;  54  t h i s space i s then used to r e f e r to the person  or o b j e c t i n subsequent  references.  Amplitude Amplitude was s i g n i n g space.  measured as s i g n s executed  beyond the normal  In a b s o l u t e terms, the g r e a t e s t number of extended  s i g n s were signed to D.A.  and H.O.  Because of the l a r g e v a r i a t i o n i n  number of s i g n s and number of p r o p o s i t i o n s a c r o s s R e c e i v e r s , measure was The  analyzed as number of s p a t i a l e x t e n s i o n s per p r o p o s i t i o n .  r e s u l t s a r e summarized i n Table 18.  relatively  this  The  t a b l e shows t h a t a  (as w e l l as a b s o l u t e l y ) g r e a t e r number of s i g n s were signed  w i t h g r e a t e r amplitude  to D.A.  other hand, s i g n i n g to H.O.  was  than to the other R e c e i v e r s . s i m i l a r to s i g n i n g to the  On  the  other  R e c e i v e r s on t h i s measure. The  i n t e r e s t i n g d i f f e r e n c e here i s one  between t a s k s .  Spatial  e x t e n s i o n s were very i n f r e q u e n t i n the I n s t r u c t i o n s but c o n s i d e r a b l y more f r e q u e n t i n the n a r r a t i v e , e s p e c i a l l y the f i r s t probably  related  part.  This i s  to d e s c r i p t i v e l y s e t t i n g the scene i n the  narrative.  Table 18.  Number of S p a t i a l E x t e n s i o n s  per ProposeL t i o n .  Receiver D.A.  S.E.  E.I.  H.O.  B.U.  Instruction 1  0.4  0.2  —  0.2  —  Paraphrase  1  1.4  0.9  1.3  0.7  1.0  Paraphrase  2  0.8  0.5  0.4  0.9  0.2  Tasks  1.0  0.5  0.6  0.7  0.7  Task  Across  55  Summary of R e c e i v e r - r e l a t e d S i g n i n g V a r i a t i o n The  r e s u l t s of t h i s study show that the Sender m o d i f i e d  s i g n i n g of each task to each R e c e i v e r . systematic  on the b a s i s of R e c e i v e r  Chapter 2. form. not  seen on any  proficiency.  ranked a c c o r d i n g  (based on o c c u p a t i o n ) on only one  to age,  occupation  or s i g n i n g  matched a p r e d i c t e d  Receivers.  i n the Sender's s i g n i n g to H.O., occupation  and  Sender s i g n e d more s i g n s , p r o p o s i t i o n s and other R e c e i v e r .  of redundancy.  The  the Sender signed  specific  the lowest ranked signing proficiency.  utterances  to H.O.  Sender repeated  than to  many p r o p o s i t i o n s , so that signed  to H.O.  the g r e a t e s t number of s i g n s to H.O.,  showed a h i g h degree of redundancy.  The  He  were more dramatic and  these  c l e a r e r . It  the same m o d i f i c a t i o n s  as those made by a d u l t s speaking to young h e a r i n g i n Snow & Ferguson, 1977).  relatively  A l l of  m o d i f i c a t i o n s worked to make the signed message s i m p l e r and to note that they are v i r t u a l l y  Although  type:token  a l s o used the  l e a s t amount of i n c o r p o r a t i o n s i n h i s s i g n i n g to H.O.  the  this also  Sender's lowest  measured i n h i s s i g n i n g to h e r .  references  The  T h i s i s accounted f o r , i n p a r t , by a h i g h degree  lowest p r o p o r t i o n of unique p r o p o s i t i o n s was  is interesting  ordering  measure; p r o p o r t i o n of unique  to d i f f e r e n t  on the b a s i s of age,  r a t i o was  considered  hypotheses c o r r e c t l y p r e d i c t e d a number of  modifications  any  are  are  In s p i t e of t h i s , some s y s t e m a t i c i t y can be seen i n the  Sender's m o d i f i c a t i o n s The  strong  d i f f e r e n c e s i n the p r e d i c t e d d i r e c t i o n  Rank o r d e r i n g of R e c e i v e r s  propositions.  as  in  supported i n t h e i r  g i v e n measure i f a l l R e c e i v e r s  i n d i v i d u a l l y and  not  v a r i a b l e s as hypothesized  Thus, these hypotheses are not  That i s , s y s t e m a t i c  Receiver  T h i s m o d i f i c a t i o n was  his  c h i l d r e n (see  M o d i f i c a t i o n s i n s i g n i n g to  c o n s i s t e n t than those addressed to any  H.O.  other  Receiver. The  hypotheses a l s o p r e d i c t e d a c l u s t e r of m o d i f i c a t i o n s i n  s i g n i n g addressed to B.U., scales.  the R e c e i v e r  In s i g n i n g to B.U.,  used the h i g h e s t  ranked h i g h e s t  the Sender had  on a l l t h r e e  a h i g h type:token r a t i o  p r o p o r t i o n of unique p r o p o s i t i o n s .  R e s u l t s on  two measures show that t h e r e was  l e s s redundancy i n the messages  to B.U.  other Receiver.  t h a t those signed  the most s i g n s and  to any  The  Sender signed at a f a s t e r r a t e to B.U.  these signed  Sender a l s o used  p r o p o s i t i o n s i n h i s s i g n i n g to B.U.  i n d i c a t e a g r e a t e r degree of l i n g u i s t i c c o m p l e x i t y .  and  This  Finally,  than to the other  should the  Receivers.  56  A l l of these r e s u l t s are i n the d i r e c t i o n of i n c r e a s e d Signing ASL  to D.A.  modifications.  on o t h e r s .  signed  ranked h i g h e s t  i n t h i s study.  the h i g h e s t  to D.A.  or c l a r i t y . r a t i o and  D.A.  c h a r a c t e r i z e d by an i n t e r e s t i n g mixture of on s e v e r a l measures and  These r e s u l t s cannot be e x p l a i n e d  variables defined forms and  was  proportion  The  i n terms of the  lowest p r o p o r t i o n  reduced  simplicity  the other hand, the Sender used h i s h i g h e s t  type:token  a h i g h number of s i g n s per p r o p o s i t i o n i n s i g n i n g to  Modifications  to the two  remaining R e c e i v e r s  characterize.  E . I . r e c e i v e d fewer s i g n s and  Receiver.  The  Sender a l s o used a low  her.  received  S.E.  type:token r a t i o and  On  are even harder to than any  other  complexity measures male R e c e i v e r s  at  — ranked  Receivers.  Signing V a r i a t i o n  designed to focus  on R e c e i v e r - r e l a t e d v a r i a t i o n ,  some of the most i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t s are r e l a t e d to d i f f e r e n c e s  between t a s k s .  The  I n s t r u c t i o n s and  the Paraphrase are  d i s t i n g u i s h e d on a number of measures.  clearly  Much of the observed  task-  r e l a t e d v a r i a t i o n i s p r e d i c t a b l e i n terms of the nature of each In I n s t r u c t i o n 1,  the Sender e x p l a i n s  each p a r t i c i p a n t would do.  The  the second p a r t ) The r a t i o and  task.  the program of events and  Paraphrase task was  i n v o l v e d d e s c r i p t i o n of c h a r a c t e r s ,  On  to  of reduced forms but was  two  Summary of T a s k - r e l a t e d T h i s study was  signing.  utterances  s i g n s per p r o p o s i t i o n —  r e l a t i v e to female  D.A.  type:token r a t i o i n s i g n i n g  the lowest p r o p o r t i o n  n e i t h e r extreme on most measures.  but  social  to be measures of  These measures both i n d i c a t e a more complex l e v e l of  high  of  lowest  of s p a t i a l l y extended s i g n s were  These were both p r e d i c t e d On  complexity.  a story  l o c a t i o n s , events and  what  that  time, and  (in  dialogue.  Paraphrase task was  more p r o p o s i t i o n s  c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a h i g h  per u t t e r a n c e  than the  type:token  Instruction  the other hand, i t a l s o showed a lower number of s i g n s  task.  per  p r o p o s i t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y i n the second p a r t , which i n c l u d e d  the  dialogue.  particularly  Prosodic  interesting.  and  p a r a l i n g u i s t i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are  Across R e c e i v e r s ,  s p a t i a l extensions  the Paraphrase tasks contained  ( g r e a t e r amplitude) and  shoulder r a i s e s , e s p e c i a l l y  i n Paraphrase 1, which i n v o l v e d more d e s c r i p t i o n . contained  more  The  narrative also  more s i d e h e a d t i l t s , a g a i n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h d e s c r i p t i o n .  It  57  was  signed  more s l o w l y  p a r t i a l l y due  to longer  than the  Instructions.  T h i s slower r a t e  or more pauses, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n Paraphrase  A number of measures were so s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e d by that Receiver-related  v a r i a t i o n l e v e l l e d out.  was  t r u e of Paraphrase 2.  Measures i n t h i s group  type:token r a t i o ( h i g h as w e l l as u n i f o r m ) , i n c o r p o r a t i o n s , reduced forms and body  proportion  2.  the  Paraphrase t a s k s particularly  was  This include  of  unique p r o p o s i t i o n s , and  changes i n  inclination. The  I n s t r u c t i o n s were b r i e f , w i t h u t t e r a n c e  c o n s i s t e n t l y marked by h e a d t i l t .  T h i s task allowed more  r e l a t e d v a r i a t i o n i n type:token r a t i o and the p r o s o d i c  and  p a r a l i n g u i s t i c measures.  a f a s t e r r a t e than the n a r r a t i v e , but f o r normal signed  conversation.  boundaries Receiver-  tended to be l e s s marked I n s t r u c t i o n 1 was  s t i l l not  as f a s t as i s  signed  on at  reported  CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSIONS  D e s c r i p t i o n of s t y l e - s w i t c h i n g i n ASL i n v e s t i g a t i v e analyses  s i m i l a r to those used i n s t u d i e s of  s w i t c h i n g i n other languages. studies provides established. i s o l a t e and  The  i s attainable via  The  i n f o r m a t i o n d e r i v e d from  c u r r e n t study has  Using  be  shown t h a t i t i s p o s s i b l e to of the ASL  code that undergo  change when the r e l a t i o n s h i p between p a r t i c i p a n t s or the  ASL  these  the data from which the r u l e s of communication can  d e s c r i b e p a r t i c u l a r aspects  goal i s a l t e r e d .  style-  communicative  t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n , c o n j e c t u r e about the r u l e s of  communication i n p a r t i c u l a r and  communicative i n t e r a c t i o n i n  g e n e r a l becomes p o s s i b l e . The  r e s u l t s of t h i s study, based on data provided  by a s i n g l e  set of s e n d e r - r e c e i v e r dyads can be used as an example of the p r e c i s e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s a v a i l a b l e u s i n g such an approach.  On  the b a s i s of  a q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s of seven c a t e g o r i e s of performance parameters, i t was  p o s s i b l e to examine the d i f f e r e n c e s between two  tasks.  r e v e a l e d a marked d i s t i n c t i o n between the I n s t r u c t i o n s and Paraphrase t a s k s , thereby g i v i n g s t y l e and  e s t a b l i s h i n g a p r o f i l e f o r an  a story-telling  style.  formal  Although i t was  previously informal  d i s t i n c t i o n , i t i s p o s s i b l e to conclude only t h a t  t a s k s were v i s i b l y d i f f e r e n t . c o n f i r m the r e a l i t y up  the  information-  mentioned t h a t these d i f f e r e n c e s i n s t y l e might r e f l e c t an versus  Results  the  F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h w i l l be necessary  of the proposed s t y l e s of p r e s e n t a t i o n and  to open  the q u e s t i o n of c o r r e l a t i o n between apparent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  s t o r y - t e l l i n g versus  i n f o r m a t i o n - g i v i n g and  formal versus  to  of  informal  classification. Comparison of performance p r o f i l e s based on s e l f procedures of the Sender, r e v e a l e d  two 58  editing  s t y l e s of s i g n i n g d i s t i n c t  from  59  a t h i r d , more n e u t r a l s t y l e . s i g n i n g to the c h i l d , was message and  greater  second d i s t i n c t who  first,  observed i n the  marked by extent  and  Sender's  redundancy of  the  r e l i a n c e on parameters that augmented c l a r i t y .  s t y l e was  ranks h i g h e r  The  seen i n the Sender's performance to an  than the Sender i n terms of age,  occupation  The  adult  and  assessed signing p r o f i c i e n c y . The  f a c t that d i s t i n c t  a n a l y s i s of the d a t a i s not describe  s t y l e s of s i g n i n g emerged from  as remarkable as the o p p o r t u n i t y  the nature of l i n g u i s t i c and  T h i s study has analyzed  and  categories.  of measurable v a r i a t i o n w i t h i n  Some of these c a t e g o r i e s  type of study than o t h e r s . t h a t showed very  not  ASL.  categories  these  are c l e a r l y more r e l e v a n t  Measures t h a t are l e s s u s e f u l are  l i t t l e v a r i a t i o n across  Although i t was  to  paralinguistic variation in  demonstrated the r e a l i t y of the performance  the extent  the  p a r t i c i p a n t s or  to  this  those  tasks.  p o s s i b l e i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n to tease  out  the i n f l u e n c e t h a t each of the s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the  Receivers  had  style-  on the Sender's performance, i t was  switching  did occur.  virtually  i d e n t i c a l , and  i d e n t i c a l , leads  c l e a r l y evident  that  That the content presented i n each case t h a t the c i r c u m s t a n c e s of p r e s e n t a t i o n  to the c o n c l u s i o n  that the sender was  c l e a r e s t d i s p l a y of s e l f - e d i t i n g by the sender served of an a d u l t - t o - c h i l d r e g i s t e r i n ASL,  narrative style. t h a t ASL  This confirmation  and  were  s e n s i t i v e to  p a r t i c u l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the communication s i t u a t i o n .  existence  was  The  to c o n f i r m  the  a distinct  adds f u r t h e r evidence to the  p a r a l l e l s spoken languages of the w o r l d .  Furthermore,  claim the  d e s c r i p t i o n of the s e l f - e d i t i n g procedure can be added to what i s c u r r e n t l y known about s t y l e - s w i t c h i n g i n languages of the T h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , then, has information  been a b l e  about what changes occur i n ASL,  m a n i f e s t e d and when these changes o c c u r . required  world.  to f u r n i s h p r e l i m i n a r y  how  these changes are  Further  research w i l l  be  to determine whether these s t y l e s of s i g n i n g are maintained  g i v e n d i f f e r e n t t a s k s , d i f f e r e n t r e c e i v e r s and, principal signers.  Results  obtained  above a l l , d i f f e r e n t  i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n must  be  i n t e r p r e t e d w i t h c a u t i o n , as i t i s p o s s i b l e that the observed s t y l e s of s i g n i n g are i d i o s y n c r a t i c . v a r i a t i o n were  discernable.  The  c r u c i a l f a c t i s t h a t the p a t t e r n s  of  60  APPENDIX A NOTATIONAL SYSTEM Words i n c a p i t a l l e t t e r s i n d i c a t e the E n g l i s h g l o s s ASL s i g n s .  SIGN  SIGN-SIGN  'meaning'  SIGtP3IGN  SIGN  [VJ  for  Two word g l o s s e s connected by hyphens are used when more than one E n g l i s h word i s r e q u i r e d to t r a n s l a t e a s i n g l e s i g n e.g. WAKE-UP. Words w i t h i n s i n g l e q u o t a t i o n marks r e p r e s e n t the meaning or r e f e r e n t of the s i g n s : e.g., ' t r e e ' i n d i c a t e s the r e f e r e n t t r e e , not the E n g l i s h word t r e e . Sign g l o s s e s j o i n e d by an a r c r e f e r to the use of two ASL s i g n s to express a s i n g l e l e x i c a l u n i t : e.g. FACE^NEW r e f e r s to ' s t r a n g e r ' . A s i g n t h a t has  undergone i n d e x i c a l change, as i n INFORM  W-O-R-D  F i n g e r s p e l l e d words are r e p r e s e n t e d i n c a p i t a l w i t h hyphens between l e t t e r s .  letters  SIGN +  A p l u s mark i s used to i n d i c a t e r e p e t i t i o n of a s i g n , e.g. NIGHT ++ i n d i c a t e s the s i g n NIGHT was made three times. /  II  The double bar i n d i c a t e s a b r i e f pause at the end of an u t t e r a n c e . During the pause, hands are h e l d i n the same p o s i t i o n as the l a s t s i g n .  ##  The double c r o s s e d bars i n d i c a t e a pause of r e l a t i v e l y long d u r a t i o n . The hands r e t u r n to r e s t p o s i t i o n . A l i n e under e i t h e r the double bar or the double c r o s s bars i n d i c a t e that the c o n f i g u r a t i o n of the l a s t s i g n was h e l d during the pause.  61  APPENDIX B PARAPHRASE TASK E x p l a i n t o the o t h e r person what you a r e going to do, and what you want him/her t o do. Then t e l l t h e s t o r y i n your own words. You should ask one o r two q u e s t i o n s about the s t o r y to encourage comment by the other person. A young woman dreamed one n i g h t t h a t she was walking a l o n g a strange country road. I t l e d h e r up a h i l l , on top of which was the l o v l i e s t l i t t l e white house and garden she had ever seen. Unable t o c o n c e a l her d e l i g h t , she knocked l o u d l y on the door of the house, and f i n a l l y i t was opened by an o l d , o l d man w i t h a long white beard. J u s t as she s t a r t e d t o t a l k t o him, she woke up. Every d e t a i l of the dream was so c l e a r i n her memory that she thought about i t f o r days. Then, t h r e e n i g h t s i n a row, she had e x a c t l y t h e same dream a g a i n . She always woke up at t h e p o i n t when h e r c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h the o l d man was about to b e g i n . A few weeks l a t e r , the young woman was d r i v i n g to C h i l l i w a c k t o v i s i t a f r i e n d , when she suddenly p u l l e d o f f the road and stopped h e r c a r . There, on the r i g h t of the highway was the country road of her dreams! She got out of the c a r and s t a r t e d walking up the road. She was not s u r p r i s e d when she a r r i v e d a t the top of the h i l l and saw the house, which was now so f a m i l i a r t o h e r . She knocked on the door and the o l d man answered. " T e l l me," she began, " i s t h i s l i t t l e house f o r s a l e ? " "Yes i t i s , " s a i d the man "but I wouldn't a d v i s e you t o buy i t . You see, t h i s house i s h a u n t e d l " "Haunted," s a i d the woman, "by whom?" "By you," r e p l i e d the o l d man and he s o f t l y c l o s e d the door. Sample q u e s t i o n s ; 1. 2.  What d i d the young l a d y dream? What happened when she found the house?  62  APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF UNINTERPRETED COUNTS OF PERFORMANCE  Table A:  PARAMETERS  T o t a l Number of Each Performance Parameter Used by Sender With Each R e c e i v e r i n I n s t r u c t i o n 1 (Task 1)  RECEIVER* H.O.  B.U.  26  52  42  38  15  27  34  2  1  1  1  —  2  1  1  D.A.  S.E.  Signs ( t o k e n s )  26  47  Unique s i g n s  25 2  PARAMETER  (types)  Incorporations Reduced  forms  —  E.I.  Indexical references  8  14  9  14  9  Utterances  4  5  2  2  4  Propositions  5  11  7  11  7  R e p e t i t i o n s of propositions ( p a r t i a l or complete)  2  1  3  4  1  16.6  27.1  14.9  29.2  21.0  D u r a t i o n of betweenu t t e r a n c e pauses i n seconds  1.2  1.5  0.6  0.3  1.8  Head t i l t s ,  backwards  4  6  5  6  6  Head t i l t s ,  forwards  3  9  6  10  6  Head t i l t s ,  right  Head t i l t s ,  left  D u r a t i o n i n seconds ( i n c l u d i n g pauses)  Shoulder  raises  Body t u r n s Changes i n body inclination Extensions  beyond  c a n o n i c a l s i g n i n g space  *Receivers are l i s t e d  — 2  — — 3  —  —  —  —  —  2  3  3  —  1  4  3  1  1  2  1  3  2  —  2  3  i n order of p r e s e n t a t i o n  —  — 2  —  63  Table B:  T o t a l Number of Each Performance Parameter Used by Sender With Each R e c e i v e r i n Paraphrase 1 (Task 2)  RECEIVER* H.O.  B.U.  51  79  66  44  42  55  56  6  3  4  6  3  2  D.A.  S.E.  Signs ( t o k e n s )  66  60  Unique s i g n s  52  Incorporations  5  Reduced  1  PARAMETER  (types)  forms  E.I.  — —  — —  Indexical references  1  Utterances  8  5  5  6  6  14  14  11  19  14  2  4  1  8  —  58.0  50.8  46.2  68.0  Propositions R e p e t i t i o n s of propositions ( p a r t i a l or complete) D u r a t i o n i n seconds ( i n c l u d i n g pauses) D u r a t i o n of betweenu t t e r a n c e pauses i n seconds "  5.9  2.2  2.3  7.1  53.0 5.7  13  11  7  10  6  forwards  9  2  6  8  8  Head t i l t s ,  right  1  3  1  4  2  Head t i l t s ,  left  6  5  5  9  4  4  6  10  11  6  9  5  5  5  6  Head t i l t s ,  backwards  Head t i l t s ,  Shoulder  raises  Body t u r n s Changes i n body inclination  —  1  5  1  5  E x t e n s i o n s beyond c a n o n i c a l s i g n i n g space  19  12  14  14  14  *Receivers a r e l i s t e d  i n order of p r e s e n t a t i o n  64  Table C:  T o t a l Number of Each Performance Parameter Used by Sender With Each R e c e i v e r i n Paraphrase 2 (Task 4)  RECEIVER* H.O.  B.U.  70  81  75  68  59  65  60  6  6  5  10  4  3  3  4  3  3  Indexical references  4  5  5  3  5  Utterances  6  9  9  13  8  23  26  24  26  19  3  5  3  12  2  58.9  66.7  57.7  68.3  47.5  D.A.  S.E.  Signs ( t o k e n s )  78  82  Unique s i g n s  64  Incorporations Reduced  PARAMETER  (types)  forms  Propositions R e p e t i t i o n s of propositions ( p a r t i a l or complete) D u r a t i o n i n seconds ( i n c l u d i n g pauses)  E.I.  D u r a t i o n of betweenu t t e r a n c e pauses i n seconds  2.1  11.3  10.0  11.9  4.7  Head t i l t s ,  backwards  7  14  12  13  7  Head t i l t s ,  forwards  9  10  9  14  8  Head t i l t s ,  right  1  1  2  1  Head t i l t s ,  left  6  6  4  9  12  6  3  5  10  6  Body t u r n s  6  4  4  8  3  Changes i n body inclination  8  7  7  8  6  19  13  10  23  4  Shoulder  raises  E x t e n s i o n s beyond c a n o n i c a l s i g n i n g space  *Receivers are l i s t e d  —  i n order of p r e s e n t a t i o n  65  BIBLIOGRAPHY Andersen, E.S., and Johnson, C.E. " M o d i f i c a t i o n s i n the Speech of an E i g h t - Y e a r - O l d as a R e f l e c t i o n of Age of L i s t e n e r . " S t a n f o r d O c c a s i o n a l Papers i n L i n g u i s t i c s 3:149-160. 1973. Baker, C.L. "What's Not on the Other Hand i n American S i g n Language." In Papers From the T w e l f t h R e g i o n a l Meeting Chicago L i n g u i s t i c S o c i e t y . E d i t e d by S.S. Mufwene, C.A. Walker and S.B. Steever. Chicago: Chicago L i n g u i s t i c S o c i e t y . 1976. . "Regulators and Turn-Taking i n American S i g n Language Discourse." In On the Other Hand. E d i t e d by L. Friedman. 1977. Baker, C.L. and Padden, C.A. "Focusing on the Nonmanual Components of American S i g n Language." In Understanding Language Through Sign Language Research. E d i t e d by P. S i p l e . 1978. B a t t i s o n , R. " P h o n o l o g i c a l D e l e t i o n i n American S i g n Language." Language S t u d i e s . 5:1-19. 1974. L e x i c a l Borrowing i n American S i g n Language. Springs: Linstok Press. 1978. B a l l , R.T. Sociolinguistics: B.T. B a t s f o r d . 1976.  Sign  Silver  G o a l s , Approaches and Problems.  London:  B e l l u g i , U. " S t u d i e s i n S i g n Language." In P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c s and T o t a l Communication: The S t a t e of the A r t . E d i t e d by T . J . O'Rourke. Washington: American Annals of the Deaf. 1972. B e l l u g i , U. and F i s c h e r , S. "A Comparison of S i g n Language and Language." C o g n i t i o n . 1:173-200. 1972.  Spoken  B e l l u g i , U. and Klima, E. "Two Faces of S i g n : I c o n i c and A b s t r a c t . " In O r i g i n s and E v o l u t i o n of Language and Speech. E d i t e d by S.R. Harnad, H.D. S t e k l i s and J . L a n c a s t e r . New York: New York Academy of S c i e n c e s . 1976. B e l l u g i , U. and Klima, E. "Aspects of Sign Language and I t ' s S t r u c t u r e . In The Role of Speech i n Language. E d i t e d by J.F. Kavanagh and J.E. C u t t i n g . 1975. Berko Gleason, J . "Code S w i t c h i n g i n C h i l d r e n ' s Language." In C o g n i t i v e Development and the A c q u i s i t i o n of Language. E d i t e d by T.E. Moore. New York: Academic P r e s s . 1973. B e r n s t e i n , B. " E l a b o r a t e d and R e s t r i c t e d Codes: T h e i r S o c i a l O r i g i n s and Some Consequences." American A n t h r o p o l o g i s t 66,6:55-69. 1964a.  66  "Aspects of Language i n the Genesis of the S o c i a l Process." In Language i n C u l t u r e and S o c i e t y . E d i t e d by D. Hymes. 1964b.  and  " S o c i a l C l a s s , Language and S o c i a l i z a t i o n . " In Language S o c i a l Context . E d i t e d by P.P. G i g l i o l i . 1972a.  "A S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c Approach to S o c i a l i z a t i o n ; With Some Reference to E d u c a b i l i t y . " In D i r e c t i o n s i n S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s . E d i t e d by J . J . Gumperz and D. Hymes. 1972. Blom, J . and Gumperz, J . J . " S o c i a l Meaning In L i n g u i s t i c S t r u c t u r e : Code-Switching i n Norway." In D i r e c t i o n s i n S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s . E d i t e d by J . J . Gumperz and D. Hymes. 1972. Bode, L.  "Communication of Agent, Object and I n d i r e c t Object i n Signed and Spoken Languages." P e r c e p t u a l and Motor S k i l l s . 39:1151-1158. 1974.  Bragg, B. "Ameslish - Our American H e r i t a g e : A Testimony." American Annals of the Deaf. 118:672-674. 1973. B r i g h t , W. V a r i a t i o n and Change i n Language. U n i v e r s i t y Press. 1976.  Stanford:  Stanford  Brown, P. and F r a s e r , C. "Speech as a Marker of S i t u a t i o n . " In S o c i a l Markers i n Speech. E d i t e d by K. Scherer and H. G i l e s . Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . 1979. Brown, R. and Gilman, A. "The Pronouns of Power and S o l i d a r i t y . " In S t y l e i n Language. E d i t e d by T.A. Sebeok. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 1960. Bynon, T. H i s t o r i c a l L i n g u i s t i c s . Press. 1977.  Cambridge:  Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y  C i c o u r e l , A.V. " S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c Aspects of the Use of Sign Language." In Sign Language of the Deaf. E d i t e d by I.M. S c h l e s i n g e r and L. Namir. 1978. C i c o u r e l , A.V. and Boese, R.J. "Sign Language A c q u i s i t i o n and the Teaching of Deaf C h i l d r e n , P a r t I . " American Annals of the Deaf. 117:27-33. 1972. C i r c o u r e l , A.V. and Boese, R.J. "Sign Language A c q u i s i t i o n and the Teaching of Deaf C h i l d r e n , P a r t I I . " American Annals of the Deaf. 117:403-411. 1972. Cohen, E., Namir, L. and S c h l e s i n g e r , I.M. A New D i c t i o n a r y of Sign Language. The Hague: Mouton. 1977. Covington, V. "Juncture i n American Sign Language." Studies. 2:29-38. 1973.  Sign  Language  67  . "Features Language S t u d i e s  of S t r e s s i n American S i g n Language." 2:39-50. 1973.  Sign  Croneberg, C. "Sign Language D i a l e c t s . " In A D i c t i o n a r y of American Sign Language, pp. 313-319. E d i t e d by W.C. Stokoe, D. C a s t e r l i n e and C. Croneberg. 1965. C r y s t a l , D. " P r o s o d i c and P a r a l i n g u i s t i c C o r r e l a t e s of S o c i a l Categories." In S o c i a l Anthropology and Language. E d i t e d by E. Ardener. London: T a v i s t o c k P u b l i c a t i o n s . 1971. C r y s t a l , D. and Davy, D. Investigating English Style. Indiana U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . 1969. Dittmar,  Bloomington:  N. Sociolinguistics: A C r i t i c a l Survey of Theory Application. London: Edward A r n o l d . 1976.  and  Eastman, G. S i g n Me A l i c e : A P l a y i n S i g n Language. Washington D . C : Gallaudet College. 1974. Edge, V. and Hermann, L. "Verbs and the D e t e r m i n a t i o n of S u b j e c t . " In On the Other Hand. E d i t e d by L.A. Friedman. 1977. Edwards, A. Language i n C u l t u r e and E d u c a t i o n a l Books. 1976.  Class.  London:  Heinemann  E r t i n g , C. "Language P o l i c y and Deaf E t h n i c i t y i n the U n i t e d Sign Language S t u d i e s 19:139-152. 1978.  States."  E r v i n - T r i p p , S. "An A n a l y s i s of the I n t e r a c t i o n of Language, T o p i c Listener." American A n t h r o p o l o g i s t 66,6:86-102. 1964.  and  . "Sociolinguistics." In Advances i n E x p e r i m e n t a l S o c i a l Psychology, Volume 4. E d i t e d by L. Berkowitz. New York: Academic P r e s s . 1969. . "On S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c R u l e s : A l t e r n a t i o n and Co-Occurrence." In D i r e c t i o n s i n S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s . E d i t e d by J . J . Gumperz and D. Hymes. 1972. . "Is S y b i l There? The S t r u c t u r e of Some American English Directives." Language i n S o c i e t y 5:25-66. 1976. Ferguson, C. "Baby T a l k i n S i x Languages." 66,6:103-114. 1964a.  American A n t h r o p o l o g i s t  . "Diglossia." In Language i n C u l t u r e and E d i t e d by D. Hymes. 1964b.  Society.  F i s c h e r , S. "Two Processes of R e d u p l i c a t i o n i n American Sign Language." Foundations i n Language 9:469-480. 1973.  68  . " I n f l u e n c e s on Word Order Change i n American S i g n Language." In Word Order and Word Order Change. E d i t e d by C.N. L i . A u s t i n : U n i v e r s i t y of Texas P r e s s . 1975. F i s c h e r , S. and Gough, B. "Verbs i n American S i g n Language." Language S t u d i e s 18:17-48. 1978. Fishman, J.A. Sociolinguistics: Newbury House. 1972a.  A Brief  Introduction.  Mass:  . "The S o c i o l o g y of Language." In Language and Context. E d i t e d by P.P. G i g l i o l i . 1972b. Frake,  CO. "How to Ask f o r a Drink i n Subanan." Anthropologist 66,6:127-132. 1964.  Sign  Social  American  Friedman, L.A. "Space, Time and Person Reference i n American S i g n Language." Language 51:940-961. 1975. . "The M a n i f e s t a t i o n of S u b j e c t , Object and Topic i n American Sign Language." In Subject and T o p i c . E d i t e d by C. L i . New York: Academic P r e s s . 1976. . ed. On the Other Hand: New P e r s p e c t i v e s on American Sign Language. New York: Academic P r e s s . 1977. G i g l i o l i , P.P. ed. Language and S o c i a l Context. Penguin E d u c a t i o n . 1972.  Harmondsworth:  G i l e s , H. and Powesland, P. Speech S t y l e and S o c i a l E v a l u a t i o n . London: Academic P r e s s . 1975. G i l e s , H., Scherer, K. and T a y l o r , D. "Speech Markers i n S o c i a l Interaction." In S o c i a l Markers i n Speech. E d i t e d by K. Scherer and H. G i l e s . Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press. 1979. Goffman, E. "The Neglected S i t u a t i o n . " 66,6:133-136. 1964. Goodenough, W.H. Language  American A n t h r o p o l o g i s t  " C u l t u r a l Anthropology and L i n g u i s t i c s . " In i n C u l t u r e and S o c i e t y . E d i t e d by D. Hymes. 1964.  . " R e t h i n k i n g ' S t a t u s ' and 'Role'." In The Relevance of Models f o r S o c i a l A n t h r o p o l o g y . E d i t e d by M. Banton. New York: F r e d e r i c k A. P r a e g e r . 1965. G r o s j e a n , F. and Lane, H. "Pauses and Syntax i n American S i g n Language." Cognition 5:101-117. 1977. Gumperz, J . J . "Types of L i n g u i s t i c Communities." Linguistics 4,1:28-36. 1962.  Anthropological  69  . " L i n g u i s t i c and S o c i a l I n t e r a c t i o n i n Two American A n t h r o p o l o g i s t 66,6:137-153. 1964.  Communities."  . " S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s and Communication i n Small Groups." Working Paper No. 33. Language-Behaviour Research L a b o r a t o r y . A p r i l 1970. . "The Speech Community." E d i t e d by J . J . Gumperz. 1971.  In Language i n S o c i a l  . ed. Language i n S o c i a l Groups. University Press. 1971.  Stanford:  Groups.  Stanford  Gumperz, J . J . and Hymes, D. eds. D i r e c t i o n s i n S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s : The Ethnography of Communication. New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t and Winston, Inc. 1972. Hoemann, H.W. Communicating w i t h Deaf P e o p l e : A Resource Manual f o r Teachers and Students of American Sign Language. Baltimore: U n i v e r s i t y Park P r e s s . 1978. Hoemann, H.W. and Tweney, R.D. "Is the S i g n Language of the Deaf An Adequate Communicative Channel?" American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n Proceedings 81:801-802. 1973. Hymes, D. " L i n g u i s t i c Aspects of C r o s s - C u l t u r a l P e r s o n a l i t y . " In Studying P e r s o n a l i t y C r o s s - C u l t u r a l l y . E d i t e d by B. K a p l a n . New York: Harper and Row. 1961. . "The Ethnography of Speaking." In Anthropology and Human B e h a v i o r . E d i t e d by T. Gladwin and W.C. S t u r t e v a r t . Washington, D . C : A n t h r o p o l o g i c a l S o c i e t y of Washington, 1962. . "Introduction: Toward Ethnographies of American A n t h r o p o l o g i s t 66,6. 1964a. . ed. Language i n C u l t u r e and S o c i e t y . and Row. 1964b.  Communication."  New  York:  Harper  . "Models of the I n t e r a c t i o n of Language and S o c i a l Setting." J o u r n a l of S o c i a l Issues 23,2:8-28. 1967. . On Communicative Competence. P h i l a d e l p h i a : University of P e n n s y l v a n i a P r e s s . 1971. ( R e p r i n t e d i n a b r i d g e d form i n P r i d e and Holmes, 1972). • Models of the I n t e r a c t i o n of Language and S o c i a l L i f e . " In D i r e c t i o n s i n S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s : The Ethnography of Communication. E d i t e d by J . J . Gumperz and D. Hymes. New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t & Winston, Inc. 1972. • Foundations i n S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s : An E t h n o g r a p h i c Approach. Philadelphia: U n i v e r s i t y of P e n n s y l v a n i a P r e s s . 1974.  70  Ingram, R. "Theme, Rheme, T o p i c and Comment i n the Syntax of American Sign Language." S i g n Language S t u d i e s 20:193-218. 1978. Joos, M. Jordon,  The  Five Clocks.  Indiana:  Indiana U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .  1967.  I.K. and B a t t i s o n , R. "A R e f e r e n t i a l Communication Experiment w i t h F o r e i g n S i g n Language." Sign Language S t u d i e s 8:69-101. 1976.  Kavanagh, J . F . and C u t t i n g , J . E . eds. Cambridge: The M.I.T. P r e s s .  The Role of Speech i n Language. 1975.  K e g l , J.A. and W i l b u r , R.B. "When Does S t r u c t u r e Stop and S t y l e Begin?" In Papers From the T w e l f t h R e g i o n a l Meeting Chicago L i n g u i s t i c S o c i e t y , pp. 376-396. E d i t e d by S.S. Mufwene, C.A. Walker and S.B. S t e e v e r . Chicago: Chicago L i n g u i s t i c Society. 1976. Klima, E. "Sound and I t ' s Absence i n the L i n g u i s t i c Symbol." In The Role of Speech i n Language. E d i t e d by J . Kavanagh and J. Cutting. 1975. K l i m a , E. and B e l l u g i , U. University Press.  The Signs of Language. 1979.  Cambridge:  Harvard  Labov, W. " P h o n o l o g i c a l C o r r e l a t e s of S o c i a l S t r a t i f i c a t i o n . " American A n t h r o p o l o g i s t 66,6:164-176. 1964. . The S o c i a l S t r a t i f i c a t i o n of E n g l i s h i n New York C i t y . Washington: Centre For A p p l i e d L i n g u i s t i c s . 1966. . "The Generale  Study of Language i n I t ' s S o c i a l Context." 23:30-87. 1970.  Lambert, W. "A S o c i a l Psychology of B i l i n g u a l i s m . " Issues 23:91-109. 1967.  Studium  J o u r n a l of  Social  L a v e r , J . and T r u d g i l l , P. "Phonetic and L i n g u i s t i c Markers i n Speech." In S o c i a l Markers i n Speech. E d i t e d by K. Scherer and H. G i l e s . 1979. Leduinka, J . "Race of I n t e r v i e w e r and the Language E l a b o r a t i o n of Black Interviewees." J o u r n a l of S o c i a l Issues 27:185-197. 1971. L i d d e l l , S.K. "Nonmanual S i g n a l s and R e l a t i v e Clauses i n American S i g n Language." In Understanding Language Through Sign Language Research. E d i t e d by P. S i p l e . 1978. Long, J.S. The Sign Language: A Manual of S i g n s . Gallaudet College Press. 1918.  Washington,  D.C:  71  Lunde, A. "The S o c i o l o g y of the Deaf." Quoted i n W. Stokoe, Sign Language S t r u c t u r e , pp. 16-24. 1978. Lyons, J . S e m i o t i c s , Volume 2. 1977.  London:  Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .  Mandel, M. " I c o n i c Devices i n American Sign Language." Other Hand. E d i t e d by L.A. Friedman. 1977.  In On the  Markowicz, H. "Some S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c C o n s i d e r a t i o n s of American S i g n Language." S i g n Language S t u d i e s 1:15-41. 1972. M a r t i n , S.E. "Speech L e v e l s i n Japan and Korea." C u l t u r e and S o c i e t y . E d i t e d by D. Hymes.  In Language i n 1964b.  Mayberry, R. "French Canadian S i g n Language: A Study of I n t e r - S i g n Language Comprehension." In Understanding Language Through Sign Language Research. E d i t e d by P. S i p l e . 1978. Meadow, K. " S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s , Sign Language and The Deaf Sub-Culture." In P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c s and T o t a l Communication. E d i t e d by T. J . O'Rourke. Washington: American Annals of the Deaf. 1972. Namir, L. and S c h l e s i n g e r , I.M. "The Grammar of Sign Language." In Sign Language of the Deaf. E d i t e d by I.M. S c h l e s i n g e r and L. Namir. 1978. O'Rourke, T . J . ed. P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c s and T o t a l Communication: The S t a t e of the A r t . Washington D . C : American Annals of the Deaf. 1972. P r i d e , J . and Holmes, J . eds. S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s : Harmondsworth: Penguin. 1972.  S e l e c t e d Readings.  S c h e r e r , K. and G i l e s , H. eds. S o c i a l Markers i n Speech. Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . 1979.  Cambridge:  S c h l e s i n g e r , H.S. and Meadow, K. Deafness and Mental H e a l t h : A Developmental Approach. San F r a n c i s c o : Langley P o r t e r I n s t i t u t e . 1971. S c h l e s i n g e r , H.S. and Meadow, K. Sound and S i g n : C h i l d h o o d Deafness and Mental H e a l t h . Berkely: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s . 1972. S c h l e s i n g e r , H.S. and Namir, L. eds. Sign Language of the Deaf: P s y c h o l o g i c a l , L i n g u i s t i c and S o c i o l o g i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e s . New York: Academic P r e s s . 1978. S i p l e , P. ed. Understanding Language Through S i g n Language Research. New York: Academic P r e s s . 1978.  72  S l o b i n , D.I. "On the Nature of T a l k to C h i l d r e n . " In Foundations of Language Development. E d i t e d by E.H. Lenneberg and E. Lenneberg. New York: Academic P r e s s . 1975. Snow, C.E. and Ferguson, C. eds. T a l k i n g t o C h i l d r e n : Language Input and A c q u i s i t i o n . Cambridge New York: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press. 1977. Stokoe, W. J r . S i g n Language S t r u c t u r e . O c c a s i o n a l Papers 8.  Buffalo:  Studies i n L i n g u i s t i c s U n i v e r s i t y of B u f f a l o P r e s s .  1960. .  "Sign Language D i g l o s s i a . "  21:27-40.  Studies i n L i n g u i s t i c s .  1970.  . S e m i o t i c s and Human S i g n Language. Humanities. 1972. . Current Mouton.  New York:  " C l a s s i f i c t i o n and D e s c r i p t i o n of Sign Languages." Trends i n L i n g u i s t i c s , V o l . 12 :345-371. 1974.  . S i g n Language S t r u c t u r e . Linstok Press. 1978.  S i l v e r S p r i n g s , Maryland:  Stokoe, W. J r . , C a s t e r l i n e , D. and Croneberg, C. A D i c t i o n a r y of American S i g n Language. Washington: G a l l a u d e t C o l l e g e . (Revised, S i l v e r Springs: Linstok Press. 1976.) T e r v o o r t , B.T. 1968.  "You Me Downtown M-O-V-I-E Fun?"  T r u d g i l l , P. Sociolinguistics: Books. 1974.  An I n t r o d u c t i o n .  Lingua  1965.  21:455-456.  England:  Penguin  Tweney, R.D. And Hoemann, H.W. " T r a n s l a t i o n and S i g n Languages." T r a n s l a t i o n . E d i t e d by R.W. B r i s l i n . New York: Gardner Press. 1976. Wilbur,  In  The Hague:  In  R.B. "The L i n g u i s t i c s of Manual Language and Manual Systems." In Communication Assessment and I n t e r v e n t i o n S t r a t e g i e s . E d i t e d by L.L. L l o y d . B a l t i m o r e : U n i v e r s i t y Park P r e s s . 1976. . American S i g n Language and Sign Systems. U n i v e r s i t y Park P r e s s . 1979.  Woodward, J.C. J r . the Deaf."  Baltimore:  " I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c Research Among Sign Language S t u d i e s 1:1-17. 1972.  . "Some C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of P i d g i n S i g n E n g l i s h . " Language S t u d i e s 3:39-46. 1973a.  Sign  73  .  "Some O b s e r v a t i o n s  American S i g n Language." 9.2:191-200. .  on S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c V a r i a t i o n and  Kansas J o u r n a l of S o c i o l o g y .  1973b.  " I n t e r r u l e I m p l i c a t i o n i n American S i g n Language."  S i g n Language S t u d i e s 3:47-56.  1973c.  . "A Report on Montana-Washington I m p l i c a t i o n a l Research." S i g n Language S t u d i e s 4:77-101. 1974. Woodward, J.C. J r . , E r t i n g , C. and O l i v e r , S. V a r i a t i o n i n American S i g n Language." 10:43-51. 1976.  " F a c i n g and H a n d ( l ) i n g Sign Language S t u d i e s  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095320/manifest

Comment

Related Items