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 i n 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 1982 (c) Susan Merryl Glazer, 1982 I n p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a n a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l m a k e i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e a n d s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s m a y b e g r a n t e d b y t h e h e a d o f my d e p a r t m e n t o r b y h i s o r h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t b e a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a 1956 M a i n M a l l V a n c o u v e r , C a n a d a V6T 1Y3 D E - 6 (3 /81 ) ABSTRACT This study was designed to i s o l a t e and describe the features of American Sign Language (ASL) that vary according to s o c i a l parameters. Two assumptions underlie t h i s proposition: ASL i s a natural language of the world, and users 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 triggered by s p e c i f i c s o c i a l f a c t o r s . 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 features of a native ASL user's signing under d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l conditions. Six people took part i n the study. The p r i n c i p a l subject or Sender was a profoundly deaf, native signer of ASL. Five other people acted as Receivers. They were a l l users of ASL and d i f f e r e d from the Sender i n one or several of the s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s : age, occupation and p r o f i c i e n c y i n ASL. The Sender signed seven tasks to each Receiver separately. The tasks included i n s t r u c t i o n s , paraphrase, d i r e c t i o n s for completion of a puzzle and questions. Each Sender-Receiver dyad was videotaped i n a recording studio. Data was transcribed and analyzed for evidence of seven performance parameters including lexicon, morphology, syntax, rate, h e a d t i l t , body movement and amplitude. It was predicted that each of the s o c i a l variables would contribute to a unique Receiver 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 that the Sender modified his signing of each task to each Receiver. The modifications were not as systematic on the basis of s o c i a l variables as predicted. Comparison of Receiver p r o f i l e s reveals two s t y l e s of signing, d i s t i n c t from a t h i r d neutral s t y l e . The Sender's signing to a c h i l d , who ranked lower than himself i n terms of age, occupation and signing proficiency was characterized by redundancy of the message and reliance on parameters that augmented c l a r i t y . The second d i s t i n c t s t y l e seen i n the Sender's performance to an adult, who ranked higher than himself on a l l three i i s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s , was marked by increased complexity. Comparison of tasks revealed a marked d i s t i n c t i o n between the Instructions and the Paraphrase tasks, thereby e s t a b l i s h i n g a p r o f i l e for an information-giving s t y l e and a s t o r y - t e l l i n g s t y l e . This i n v e s t i g a t i o n was able to f u r n i s h preliminary information about what changes occur i n ASL given d i f f e r e n t tasks and d i f f e r e n t p a r t i c i p a n t s . Carolyn Johnson i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i i LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS v i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS v i i Chapter 1. LITERATURE REVIEW AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 1 Introduction American Sign Language as a Natural 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 Selection of the Par t i c i p a n t s Selection of the Tasks C o l l e c t i o n of the Data Transcription of the Data Analysis of the Data Hypotheses 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 39 Introduction Performance Parameters Summary of Receiver-related Signing V a r i a t i o n Summary of Task-related Signing V a r i a t i o n 4. CONCLUSIONS 58 APPENDIX A 60 APPENDIX B 61 APPENDIX C 62 BIBLIOGRAPHY 65 i v LIST OF TABLES 1. Total Number of Signs (Tokens) Used by Sender to Each Receiver i n Each Task 40 2. Sender's Type:Token Ratio to Each Receiver i n Each Task 41 3. Proportion of Incorporations to Total Signs Used by Sender with Each Receiver i n Each Task 42 4. Proportion of Reduced Forms to Total Signs Used by Sender with Each Receiver i n Each Task 43 5. Proportion of Indexical References to Total Signs Used by Sender with Each Receiver i n Each Task 43 6. Tot a l Number of Utterances Signed by Sender to Each Receiver i n Each Task 44 7. Number of Propositions Per Utterance Signed by Sender to Each Receiver i n Each Task 45 8. Number of Signs Per Proposition Signed by Sender to Each Receiver i n Each Task 46 9. Proportion of Unique to Total Propositions 47 10. Number of Repetitions per Utterance 48 11. Rate of Signing i n Number of Signs per Second (Including Pauses) 49 12. Rate of Signing i n Number of Signs per Second (Not Including Pauses) 49 13. Number of Forward and Backward Headtilts per Proposition 51 14. Number of Left and Right Headtilts per Proposition 51 15. Number of Shoulder Raises per Proposition 52 16. Number of Body Turns per Proposition 52 17. Number of Changes i n Body I n c l i n a t i o n per Proposition 53 18. Number of Sp a t i a l Extensions per Proposition 54 v LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. The Sign f o r 'Tree' i n (a) American Sign Language; (b) Danish Sign Language; and (c) Chinese Sign Language 3 2. Orientation of the Hands Distinguishes Between Two Signs Which are Ide n t i c a l i n A l l Other Respects 8 3. How F a c i a l Expression Assumes a Syntactic Function i n ASL 15 4. Ranking of the Six Participants i n Terms of Age, Occupation and Command of ASL 32 5. Ranking of Receivers, From High to Low, on the Basis of Number of Propositions Per Utterance i n Each Table 45 v i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I want to acknowledge my sincere appreciation to a l l those who contributed to the preparation and completion of th i s work. To Dr. Carolyn Johnson and Dr. Bryan Clarke I express gratitude for guidance and timely advice. To Dr. John G i l b e r t and Dr. Andre-Pierre Benguerel I am thankful for continued encouragement. Special thanks to Bunny Munch who was instrumental i n t r a n s c r i p t i o n of the data. I also wish to thank Dr. G. Richard Tucker, Dr. Wallace Lambert, Brian McMahon and a l l i n d i v i d u a l s who took part i n the study. S.M.G. 1982 v i i 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 that competent users of language exhibit l i n g u i s t i c v a r i a t i o n which i s systematically related 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 occurs. This phenomenon, i d e n t i f i e d now as style-switching, has been confirmed i n many of the natural languages of the world, including English, Japanese, Hindi and others. Although there has been some discussion about style-switching i n American Sign Language (ASL), few studies have attempted to i d e n t i f y the features of ASL that undergo systematic v a r i a t i o n within a given s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n . The thesis developed i n the current study i s that i t i s possible to i s o l a t e and describe the features of ASL that vary according to s o c i a l parameters. Two assumptions underlie t h i s proposition: (a) ASL i s a natural language of the world, and (b) users 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 triggered 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 Natural Language The view that ASL i s a natural language of the world has been widely accepted only recently. P r i o r to the middle 1960's, ASL was considered a loosely connected array of pantomimic gestures. The appearance of Sign Language Structure (Stokoe, 1960) and the Dictionary  of American Sign Language (Stokoe, Casterline & Croneberg, 1965) marked the departure point for the study of sign language. These works were the f i r s t to recognize the i n t e r n a l organization of a sign language and included discussions of methodological, s o c i o l o g i c a l and l i n g u i s t i c issues. That ASL i s a rule-governed l i n g u i s t i c system has taken years and a vast amount of indisputable evidence to e s t a b l i s h . And there are s t i l l sceptics I 1 2 Most investigations of ASL (and other sign languages) deal with the following issues: the nature of the i n t e r n a l organization of sign language; and what a d d i t i o n a l information sign language provides regarding human l i n g u i s t i c c a p a c i t i e s . Examination of these issues w i l l be provided as a basis for understanding and i n t e r p r e t i n g the data which w i l l be presented l a t e r . Comparison of Sign Language With Spoken Language Four major b e l i e f s about sign language have contributed to the reluctance on the part of other language communities to accept ASL as a natural language. These b e l i e f s , now termed "myths" or "misconceptions" (Battison, 1978; S i p l e , 1978), are related to supposed (1) u n i v e r s a l i t y of sign languages; (2) dependency on spoken languages; (3) i c o n i c i t y and transparency; and (4) r e s t r i c t e d range of expression. There i s now evidence s u f f i c i e n t to d i s p e l these apparent misconceptions. U n i v e r s a l i t y One f a l s e notion about ASL i s that there e x i s t s one mutually i n t e l l i g i b l e sign language for a l l deaf communities i n the world. There i s ample evidence, however, that unique sign languages e x i s t i n a number of countries such as China, Denmark, H a i t i , I s r a e l and Spain. Despite s i m i l a r i t i e s (probably imposed by general constraints on signed languages), differences among these languages are present at many l i n g u i s t i c l e v e l s . Examination of sign d i c t i o n a r i e s i n d i f f e r e n t countries shows that not a l l sign languages denote the same things with the same signs. Woodward (1975, c i t e d i n Battison, 1978) compared 872 signs from American and P a r i s i a n Sign Language. He found that, for these two h i s t o r i c a l l y related sign languages, only 26.5% of the signs were i d e n t i c a l . B e l l u g i & Klima (1975) and Mayberry (1978) compared ASL with Chinese Sign Language and French Canadian Sign Language, re s p e c t i v e l y . Both investigations reported differences i n formational aspects of the languages they compared: sign forms not used i n ASL but present i n the other sign languages, and impossible ASL forms. For example, i n ASL the /F/ hand configuration i s made so that the thumb and index finger 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 in CHOP and QUESTION. Lexical differences also show up in comparisons between sign languages. The sign THEE in 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' in (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 in their own sign language. 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 intelligible. 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 organization of i t s own, but instead r e f l e c t s a sign-for-word manual t r a n s l a t i o n of the l o c a l spoken language. This view may have been upheld by the knowledge that i t i s possible 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 set of " d i g i t a l symbols which stand i n one-to-one r e l a t i o n s h i p with the l e t t e r s of the English alphabet" (Stokoe, 1960:33). It i s used to supplement l e x i c a l items with grammatical i n f l e c t i o n s , such as p l u r a l - s , as well as to provide English words where no sign i s known; names and technical terms are often f i n g e r s p e l l e d . F i n g e r s p e l l i n g can be seen as a type of borrowing between languages. It i s not, however, used by any l i n g u i s t i c community as the sole means of communication. Another confusion that has suggested sign language dependence on spoken language structure i s the p o s s i b i l i t y of coding a spoken language manually. This i s frequently seen when hearing people learning sign language base t h e i r expressions exclusively on English syntax. In addition, several attempts have been made to combine ASL with the grammar of English. An example of such a methodical signing system i s Signing Exact English (Gustason, Pfetzing & Zawolkow, 1972) which was developed for the purpose of displaying English manually. It has been useful as an educational supplement and includes ASL signs with the add i t i o n of a f f i x markers which correspond to English grammatical morphemes. As with f i n g e r s p e l l i n g , Signing Exact English i s not used exclu s i v e l y by any deaf community. I c o n i c i t y and transparency There i s a popular b e l i e f that signs are not a r b i t r a r y symbols, but instead carry an i c o n i c or representational resemblance to t h e i r referents. Because of the apparent i c o n i c i t y , ASL's pot e n t i a l for symbolic representation has frequently been questioned. Although the inexperienced eye may view the gestures of ASL as a d i r e c t physical representation of c e r t a i n l e x i c a l items, d e t a i l e d analyses have shown t h i s not to be the case. Several procedures have been adopted to measure the degree of transparency of ASL signs. B e l l u g i & Klima (1976) presented 90 ASL signs and t h e i r English glosses to a group of 10 hearing nonsigners and asked them to describe the basis for the resemblance between each sign and i t s meaning. Results 5 in d i c a t e that there was general agreement among subjects as to the possible r e l a t i o n s h i p between the signs and t h e i r glosses for more than half the signs. A second group of 10 hearing nonsigners were asked to guess the meanings of the same 90 signs. In t h i s case, subjects determined the correct meaning for only nine of the 90 signs. This study revealed that due to modality of production of signs, a c e r t a i 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 that t h i s does not i n t e r f e r e with the p o t e n t i a l for a r b i t r a r i n e s s of the signs of the language. Mandell (1977) suggested that the i c o n i c devices u t i l i z e d by ASL are constrained by r u l e s . A good example of an i c o n i c device i s that used i n the sign EGG. This sign i s c l e a r l y related to the breaking open of an eggshell. The action i s highly s t y l i z e d , however, i n that the fingers of each hand i n t e r a c t i n a way that would not r e a l i s t i c a l l y depict the holding of an egg. Klima & B e l l u g i (1979) asked 10 nonsigners to convey i n gestures the meaning of the word egg. Although each subject gave a s i m i l a r rendition i n terms of theme— picking up a small oval object, h i t t i n g i t , e t c . — t h e d e t a i l s varied greatly i n s t y l e . Whereas the pantomimes varied, d i f f e r e n t renditions of the sign EGG by experienced signers were very s i m i l a r . Hoemann (1978) accounts for the s i m i l a r i t y across signers by suggesting that pantomime i s drama, and i s not r e s t r i c t e d to the set of locations and movements that are the s t r u c t u r a l features of ASL. He believes that i n ASL well-formedness i n terms of features i s more important than pantomimic effectiveness. In analyses of h i s t o r i c a l changes i n ASL, researchers show evolutionary a l t e r a t i o n s of 'old' signs. In ASL, changes have been noticed i n the d i r e c t i o n of increasingly abstract formational constraints, or a change from i c o n i c i t y to the more a r b i t r a r y (Klima & B e l l u g i , 1979). For example, signs of the emotions, once located near the heart (Long, 1918), have moved to the more neutral l o c a t i o n of the centre of the chest. Battison (1974) has 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 be i d e n t i c a l i n configuration and are constrained i n terms of place of a r t i c u l a t i o n and movement. Symmetry reduces the complexity of the sign and creates more redundancy i n the s i g n a l . Another change, reported by Klima & B e l l u g i (1979), i s increased f l u i d i t y of signs; t h i s involves 6 reducing a multipart sign to a single sign. H i s t o r i c a l l y , INFORM was composed of KNOW (one-handed) and OFFER (two-handed). Over time the two parts have blended to form a smooth single sign. Restricted content A common misconception about ASL i s that i t i s l i m i t e d to the representation of concrete ideas and lacks l e x i c a l and grammatical complexity. Studies of ASL have shown that some signs are i n fact dependent on context for correct i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . For example, the sign CARRY depends on what i s being c a r r i e d . B e l l u g i & Klima (1975) point out that, within ASL, there i s the p o s s i b i l i t y f or expression at any l e v e l of abstraction. There i s vocabulary for topics of i n t e r e s t including aspects of r e l i g i o n , p o l i t i c s , e t h i c s , h i s t o r y and fantasy. In a d d i t i o n , o r i g i n a l plays have been composed and performed e n t i r e l y i n ASL (Eastman, 1974). Another i n d i c a t i o n that ASL i s equipped to handle abstract concepts i s the occurrence of i n t e n t i o n a l play on signs. Double meanings i n ASL involve one of three processes: the blending of two signs, the overlapping of two signs, or the s u b s t i t u t i o n of one regular ASL feature for another i n the sign (Klima & B e l l u g i , 1975). For example, when a young deaf man was asked how he f e l t about leaving town for a new job, he expressed his f e e l i n g s by simultaneously signing EXCITED and DEPRESSED. O r d i n a r i l y , each of the signs i s made with two hands moving symmetrically. This signer made half of each sign with each hand, thereby i n d i c a t i n g his ambivalence. The misconceptions which allude to sign 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 by recent research. Numerous studies c l e a r l y demonstrate that ASL displays the same communicative functions, i n t e r n a l structure and complexity found i n natural languages of the world. Owing to differences i n modality of perception and production, however, ASL and other sign languages have some s p e c i a l features which are absent i n spoken languages. It i s to these unique features that the discussion 2 w i l l turn . While they are unique to sign language, these features have analogues i n the various a n a l y t i c l e v e l s of language. 7 L i n g u i s t i c Description of ASL For a thorough d e s c r i p t i o n of the 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 referred to works by Stokoe (1978), Klima & B e l l u g i (1979) and Wilbur (1979). For purposes of t h i s report, several aspects of ASL that are d i r e c t l y relevant and important to the understanding of the current study w i l l be reviewed. These features include (1) physical formation of signs i n ASL, (2) le x i c o n , (3) morphology, (4) d e f i n i t i o n of a signed utterance, (5) syntax, (6) nonsign channels of ASL, (7) rate of signing, (8) signing space, and (9) discourse i n ASL. Physical formation Stokoe (1960) put f o r t h the f i r s t s t r u c t u r a l d e s c r i p t i o n of ASL for which he coined the term "cherology." His units of analysis have been used i n most research i n the f i e l d . He posited that ASL requires three kinds of information about simultaneous events to specify any given sign and to d i s t i n g u i s h i t from other signs. The aspects he described are (1) l o c a t i o n of the sign i n r e l a t i o n to the body, c a l l e d 'tabula' or 'tab'; (2) the handshape or configuration of one or both hands involved i n the sign, termed 'designator' or 'dez'; and (3) the movement of the hands, c a l l e d 'signation' or ' s i g . ' These aspects, which are discussed more f u l l y i n Stokoe's revised work r e f l e c t what  acts (dez), i t s action (sig) and the lo c a t i o n of the action (tab) (Stokoe, 1978). Motivation for t h i s more general terminology arose from the necessity of recognizing the interrelatedness of the simultaneous events. Description of what acts reveals the actual configuration of the hand or hands. Stokoe described 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 representation of English. For example, i n the /C/ handshape the hand assumes the shape of grasping a b a l l , and the /¥/ hand i s made by contact of the t i p s of the thumb and index f i n g e r , with the other three fingers extended. The action of the hand i n three-dimensional space can be described 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 outlined 24 d i s t i n c t movements, including motion toward the signer, 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 in ANGEL. With these three aspects explicity described and with a corresponding notational system, Stokoe was able to adequately capture the essence of the signs of ASL. 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 in 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 in a l l other respects. (Adapted from Battison 1978:25). What is important to note from the description of the formational characteristics of ASL is that the physical representation of each sign is comprised of discrete and measurable units. These units are roughly comparable to phonetic features of place and manner of articulation in vocal language. Note that this is 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 in ASL dictionaries. Comparison of signs that differ with respect to only one of these formational aspects (the 'minimal pairs' of traditional linguistic 9 analysis) has revealed f a m i l i e s of signs that are related by s i m i l a r i t i e s i n the remaining aspects. For example, Frishberg & Gough (c i t e d i n Wilbur, 1979) show how c e r t a i n signs are i d e n t i c a l except for d i r e c t i o n of movement. Examples of opposite pairs include APPEAR/ DISAPPEAR, IMPROVE/GET WORSE. Another family i s related by handshape, for instance, EXCITE, DEPRESS, FEEL, LIKE, TOUCH. Location of the sign i s another feature that binds c e r t a i n signs. For example, BOY, MAN and BROTHER are a r t i c u l a t e d at the forehead, while GIRL, WOMAN and SISTER are produced on the lower cheek. The l i s t i n g of commonly used signs i n ASL does not imply that the set of signs i s a closed one. New signs are added as the need a r i s e s . For example, i n i t i a l i z e d signs (which r e f e l c t a type of borrowing from English) are formed by representing the f i r s t l e t t e r of the English word as the hand configuration. Klima & B e l l u g i (1979) o f f e r the example of the new sign MODULATION which was formed by retain i n g a l l the aspects of the sign CHANGE with the exception of the handshape; /M/ handshape for MODULATION was substituted for the o r i g i n a l /A/ shape i n CHANGE. It i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that signs i n ASL do not always correspond to words i n English on a one-to-one basis. Signs i n ASL sometimes require more than one English word to indicate the referent. For example, the meaning of the combined English words 'look at' i s expressed by a s i n g l e sign i n ASL. S i m i l a r l y , when the sign for '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 single sign WALK-UP requires two English words. Conversely, some English words are translated by more than one sign, as i n the compound BLUE~SPOT, meaning 'bruise' or FACE""STR0NG meaning 'resemble'. Morphology Wilbur (1979) discusses the morphological processes found i n ASL, with the addendum that 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 basic sign) and d e r i v a t i o n a l morphology (where the basic sign i s modified i n some regular manner) i s d i f f i c u l t to determine c l e a r l y . For t h i s reason no attempt w i l l be made here to separate these types of morphological processes. D i r e c t i o n a l i t y i s an ASL morphological device whereby the 10 meaning of a proposition may be modified by a change i n d i r e c t i o n of movement. The d i r e c t i o n a l movement i s along a horizontal or v e r t i c a l 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 goal (Edge & Hermann, 1977). For example, the verb LOOK can be marked for agent and beneficiary depending on where, r e l a t i v e to the sender, the sign i s i n i t i a t e d . LOOK which begins close to the sender and moves outward to the receiver means 1I-look-at-you'; whereas, i f the sender begins the sign close to the receiver and moves i t towards himself, the meaning of the phrase would then be 'you-look-at-me.' Other verbs which operate s i m i l a r l y are INFORM and GIVE. Another morphological process, also demonstrated i n the preceding example, i s incorporation, i . e . compacting information into a si n g l e sign. Agent-beneficiary incorporation i s one p o s s i b i l i t y of reducing the redundancy of an utterance by overlapping two or more semantic categories. In the LOOK example, the agent, verb and beneficiary overlap i n one sign. Other categories that lend themselves to incorporation are s i z e , shape, manner, number and l o c a t i o n . Incorporation of size i s seen i n BIG-HOUSE, where the sender signs HOUSE with an increased displacement of the hands, instead of the two separate signs BIG and HOUSE. An example of incorporation for shape i s noted i n the sign for 'remove' which depends on the physical shape of the object, e.g. a n a i l , a large painting or a small object from inside a box. Incorporation of manner can be seen with the verb WALK, which can be signed rapidly or slowly, meaning 'walk-fast' or 'walk-slow' re s p e c t i v e l y . Incorporation of number i s possible, where the nondominant hand takes on the configuration of the number, as i n TWO-WEEK. With incorporation 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 an event can be signed simultaneously with the noun or verb sign, f o r example WALK-UP. A t h i r d morphological process i n ASL i s r e d u p l i c a t i o n , where a sign i s repeated more than once. Reduplication marks a sign for p l u r a l i t y , i t e r a t i v e or durational aspect. For example, FRIEND FRIEND FRIEND means 'many frie n d s ' (Fischer, 1973) and SOLDIER STAND STAND STAND UNDER TREE means 'the s o l d i e r s stand under the tree' (Hoemann, 1978). Either the noun or corresponding verb signs can assume the marking of p l u r a l i t y . Frishberg & Gough ( c i t e d i n Wilbur, 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 that a f f e c t s time nouns. For example, r e p e t i t i o n of the sign WEEK with continuous brushing motion becomes WEEKLY and s i m i l a r l y MONTH to MONTHLY. Slow r e p e t i t i o n , with added wide c i r c u l a r path indicates duration, so that WEEK becomes 'for weeks and weeks.' Fischer (1973) discusses t h i s device as i t applies to s t a t i v e and nonstative verbs, to indicate aspect. She demonstrates that s t a t i v e verbs, such as APPEAR or SEEM, must be repeated quickly, whereas active verbs DRINK, TALK and WIN can be reduplicated slowly or quickly. Slow red u p l i c a t i o n i s interpreted to mean that either the action was repeated over and over, such as 'winning and winning and winning' or that the action was continued for a long time, as i n , 'talked f or a long time.' Another morphological process i n ASL has been referred to as i n d e x i c a l reference, where a point i n space i s established for a noun sign. Once established, the signer can r e c a l l the referent by pointing to, or glancing at the predesignated spot without repeating the actual sign. This device i s frequently used to assign a person to a l o c a t i o n so as not to have to repeat that person's name each time i t comes up i n conversation. Yet another process i s reduction i n form. A reduced form occurs when formation of a sign i s s i m p l i f i e d i n movement, configuration or l o c a t i o n . For example, THINK, which i s usually made with the index finger touching the temple, can i n conversation be produced i n a more neutral l o c a t i o n , several centimeters from the signer's head. D e f i n i t i o n of an utterance Stokoe, Casterline & Croneberg (1965) define an utterance i n ASL as the sign a c t i v i t y (or l i n g u i s t i c a l l y meaningful body a c t i v i t y ) which occurs between positions of repose, where repose involves contact of the hands with each other, some part of the body, or an a r t i c l e of f u r n i t u r e . Other researchers (Covington, 1973a, 1973b; Grosjean & Lane, 1977) support t h i s d e f i n i t i o n and claim that aspects of the period of repose can be revealing f or purposes of determining constituent boundaries of signed discourse. Covington (1973a, 1973b) i d e n t i f i e s several c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of 12 the juncture between two signed utterances. She states that during the pause, the hands may be held i n the l o c a t i o n of the l a s t sign and/or i n the hand configuration of the l a s t sign. This type of pause would in d i c a t e that the signer s t i l l has more to say, and would be r e l a t i v e l y short i n duration. By contrast, at the end of the conversation, the hands w i l l f a l l to the signers lap, sides or piece of f u r n i t u r e , and remain there for a longer time. Grosjean & Lane (1977) claim that close examination of pauses i n ASL discourse can help determine the l o c a t i o n of both major and minor constituent boundaries of an utterance. They demonstrated experimentally that a hearing nonsigner had no d i f f i c u l t y i d e n t i f y i n g and measuring pauses upon repeated viewing of videotaped ASL discourse. The subject was i n agreement with the judges approximately 83% of the time. Grosjean & Lane found that the longest pauses i n a signed story appeared at the boundary between two utterances, shorter pauses appeared between parts of a conjoined sentence and the shortest pauses appeared between i n t e r n a l constituents or l e x i c a l items. Syntax Claims about sign order i n ASL have been widely discrepant. An early p o s i t i o n held by Tervoort (1968) was that ASL was weakly structured with great freedom of word order. He took one sentence, YOU ME DOWNTOWN M-O-V-I-E FUN? (translated as a request to go downtown to a movie) and presented i n written form a l l possible permutations to teachers who were asked to judge them i n terms of grammaticality. That none of the premutations was considered ungrammatical was taken by Tervoort as evidence that word order i s free i n ASL. Several problems are apparent which make the r e s u l t s of t h i s study equivocal. F i r s t l y , 3 Tervoort asked non-native signers to judge these utterances and secondly, the utterances were taken out of context. Native vs. non-native signers. Not a l l users acquire sign language i n the same manner. It 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 native signers, who learn sign language as a f i r s t language from family members, and non-native users for whom formal signing was not the major means of early communication. A more complete examination of t h i s issue can be found l a t e r i n t h i s chapter. 13 Fischer (1975) argues that ASL i s b a s i c a l l y a Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) language, l i k e English, which developed i n th i s way through the p r e v a i l i n g influence of the source language. Fischer presented sign sequences consisting of permutations of two nouns and a verb to native signers. From the signers' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , she concluded that ASL i s an underlying SVO language but q u a l i f i e d t h i s by stat i n g that "other orders are allowed under the circumstances that (a) something i s t o p i c a l i z e d , (b) the subject and object are non-reversible and/or (c) the signer used space to indicate grammatical mechanisms" (Fischer, 1975:21). Allowable departure from SVO order can be si g n a l l e d by pauses, h e a d t i l t s , raised eyebrows and other nonmanual cues, which Fischer terms 'intonation breaks.' Friedman (1976) on the other hand, i n her own analysis of discourse samples, found that SVO order was present but only i n -frequently. She claims that word order i n ASL i s free, but notes a tendency f o r the verb to be l a s t . She argues for an underlying SOV order, consistent with the large number of OV constructions she found. The constructions resulted from subject d e l e t i o n . Kegl (1976) supports Fischer's view that ASL i s an underlying SVO language and postulates a s o l u t i o n to the word order controversy: the F l e x i b i l i t y Condition, which states that the more i n f l e c t e d the verb i s , the f r e e r the word order may be. In view of th i s i n t e r a c t i o n between verb i n f l e c t i o n and word order, one may f i n d that i f a verb i s f u l l y i n f l e c t e d f o r subject and object, signers may vary the order of the signs. In addition, the nonmanual cues may r e f l e c t an optional rule l i k e t o p i c a l i z a t i o n , rather than a non-SVO order. This view i s consistent with our knowledge about the r e l a t i o n s between word order and degree of i n f l e c t i o n i n vocal languages of the world. Nonsign channels The aspects of ASL structure presented so f a r primarily concern signs made by the user's hands. Baker (1976), Baker & Padden (1978), L i d d e l l (1978) and others f e e l that the hands are not the only c a r r i e r s of l i n g u i s t i c information. Baker suggests that there are f i v e channels operating l i n g u i s t i c a l l y i n ASL: the hands, the eyes, the face, the head and body posture. In other words, i n any utterance, these channels 14 function simultaneously and continuously with a l l the previously mentioned features of ASL structure. For example, l e x i c a l items can include, as a formational feature, f a c i a l movements which mark negatives, interrogatives and r e l a t i v e clauses. Such overlap gives ASL a great p o t e n t i a l for semantic redundancy. Except for the hands, these channels have not been exhaustively examined due to c e r t a i n methodological considerations, e.g. an adequate t r a n s c r i p t i o n system and segmenting the components into d i s c r e t e elements. However, i t i s relevant to the present study to outline 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 functions of the four remaining channels. The eyes. Baker (1976) suggests several functions of the eyes i n an ASL utterance. She found that many signs never occur without movement of the eyes. For example for QUOTE and IMAGINE, the signer always looks up, and with SEARCH, the eyes look around as i f a c t u a l l y searching for something. Closing the eyes has been used for emphasis, occurring, for example, with SLOW. According to Baker (1978) eye gaze can also serve to regulate turn-taking i n ASL. A signer does not i n i t i a t e a turn u n t i l the desired addressee looks at him or her. So, control of the f l o o r can be maintained by avoiding d i r e c t eye contact. F a c i a l expression. F a c i a l expression refers to the a c t i v i t y of the muscles c o n t r o l l i n g the mouth, nose, eyebrows, forehead, etc. Many manual signs require concomitant f a c i a l a c t i v i t y , just as others require s p e c i f i c eye movements. For instance, NOT-YET may be accompanied by a puckering of the nose and a sideways shaking of the head. ASL also has f a c i a l expressions which can be substituted for l e x i c a l items, such as adjectives or adverbs. The phrase 'big tree' may be produced with puffed cheeks plus the manual sign TREE. It has been found that puffed cheeks i s a productive means of i l l u s t r a t i n g the magnitude of objects or events. B e l l u g i & Fischer (1972) and Stokoe (1960) have observed that although there are ASL manual signs of negation, a signer may negate a sign by frowning and lowering his or her eyebrows and shaking the head sideways. Baker (1976) demonstrates how f a c i a l expression can operate gramatically by comparing four variants which use the manual signs for REMEMBER THAT. (See Figure 3). 15 Figure 3. How f a c i a l expression assumes a syntactic function i n ASL. Baker, 1976:27). REMEMBER THAT 'I remember that* REMEMBER THAT 'I don't remember that.' ^— Neg > (brow squint) REMEMBER THAT 'Do you remember that?* <- Q —4 (raised brows) REMEMBER THAT 'Don't you remember that.' Neg&Q ) (raised brow squint) The head. The t i l t of the head can operate as an adjective i n ASL i n 'big tree' vs. 'tiny tree' (Baker, 1976). In the former, the head was t i l t e d backward while signing TREE, and s l i g h t l y forward h e a d t i l t was noticed for the l a t t e r . Sideways shaking of the head has already been mentioned i n connection with negation. In a study of ASL syntak, L i d d e l l ( c i t e d i n Baker, 1976) discovered that r e l a t i v e clauses are marked by s p e c i f i c head p o s i t i o n and f a c i a l expression. He reports that during the signing of r e l a t i v e clause, the head i s t i l t e d backward, the eyebrows s l i g h t l y raised and the nose i s wrinkled. Body posture. Aspects of body posture that have been found s i g n i f i c a n t i n transmitting l i n g u i s t i c information are forward and backward t i l t of the body to indicate size ( L i d d e l l , c i t e d i n Wilbur, 1979), shoulder raised to indicated question or size (Baker, 1976) and actual change i n i n c l i n a t i o n of the body from neutral to the l e f t or to the r i g h t ( B e l l u g i & Fischer, 1972). The s h i f t i n body i n c l i n a t i o n has been used to indicate various characters i n a story, p a r t i c u l a r l y to show who i s speaking to whom. Rate of signing Rate of signing has been examined experimentally by B e l l u g i and Fischer (1972) where comparisons were made between the time needed to r e l a t e a story i n English and i n ASL. Results indicate that the two versions of the story contained the same number of propositions, had the same semantic content and took the same amount of time to produce. 16 A diffe r e n c e i n modality was apparent with respect to the number of l e x i c a l units; 50% more words than signs were needed. The average rate a r t i c u l a t i o n was 2.4 signs per second and 4.7 words per second. The average rate f or propositions per second was 1.3 for the signed story and 1.5 for the spoken story. Signing space In ASL, a r t i c u l a t i o n of signs i s r e s t r i c t e d to a p a r t i c u l a r space. In general, the hands do not extend above the head or below waist l e v e l , nor beyond the reach of the arms to the sides with elbows close to the body (Klima & B e l l u g i , 1979). Few signs occur at the l i m i t s of t h i s space and only r a r e l y do any signs exceed the normal l i m i t s . V i o l a t i o n can occur by amplifying the dimension of a movement, lengthening i t s path or widening the diameter of a sign. Namir & Schlesinger (1978) suggest that v i o l a t i o n of the normal signing l i m i t s i s a device used to i n t e n s i f y c e r t a i n signs, thereby modulating t h e i r meaning. Discourse In connected discourse, adjacent signs may influence each other, r e s u l t i n g i n modification of one or both signs. The e f f e c t i 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. Chinchor & Kegl ( c i t e d i n Kegl & Wilbur, 1976) i n a videotaped version of The Three  L i t t l e Pigs noticed that the sign LET, usually signed at waist l e v e l , was signed instead at chest l e v e l i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of the place of a r t i c u l a t i o n of the next sign, ME. We can see that proximal elements i n t e r a c t i n ASL as they do i n o r a l language. In ASL, time and tense are not marked on the verb as i n English, but are established at the beginning of a conversation and held u n t i l the time reference i s changed. This i s compatible with a view i n the study of vocal languages that tense i s a property of discourse rather than a property of sentences. Friedman (1975) s p e c i f i e s a time l i n e which describes an arc beginning i n front of the signers dominant side, touching the cheek and continuing behind the signer's head. The space i n front of the body indicates present, s l i g h t l y more forward indicates near future and f a r forward s i g n i f i e s very distant future. S i m i l a r l y , past time i s s i g n a l l e d i n the space above the shoulder. 17 The preceding summary of the unique c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of ASL that originate from i t s designated modality of presentation supports the claim that despite s u p e r f i c i a l differences, 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 other languages of the world. A S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c View of Language Consideration of the s o c i a l dimensions of language has been posited by many researchers 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 l i n g u i s t i c analysis (Gumperz, 1964; Hymes, 1962, 1964a; Ervin-Tripp, 1964). Investigation of t h i s type would assume a broader view of the process of communication and focus on "Who says what to whom, i n what way and on what occasion?" Such analysis i s the domain of s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s . T r a d i t i o n a l l i n g u i s t i c theory ... i s concerned primarily with an i d e a l speaker -l i s t e n e r , i n a completely homogeneous speech community, who knows i t s language p e r f e c t l y and i s unaffected by such grammatically i r r e l e v a n t conditions 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 attention and i n t e r e s t , and errors (random or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ) i n applying h i s knowledge i n actual performance. (Chomsky, 1965:3). Chomsky's proposed model of language, transformational generative grammar c r u c i a l l y distinguishes l i n g u i s t i c competence and l i n g u i s t i c performance. L i n g u i s t i c competence i s concerned with the underlying knowledge of language structure that i s i m p l i c i t i n what the i d e a l speaker-listener says, but i s not necessarily accessible by personal report. Transformational generative grammar attempts to explicate the knowledge that 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 set of sentences. L i n g u i s t i c performance i s concerned with the implementation and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of speech events, and i s not within the scope of t h i s l i n g u i s t i c theory. According to socio-l i n g u i s t s , Chomsky's theory of competence postulates i d e a l speech events i n abstraction, o f f e r i n g no importance to the s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l influences which may have determined t h e i r very existence. So c i o c u l t u r a l dimensions that seem to be i n e x t r i c a b l y linked to speech events include c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the people involved 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 the topic of the i n t e r a c t i o n . Slobin (1971) argues that there has been lack of concern regarding the s o c i a l s e t t i n g as i t influences language behavior, and 18 Goffman (1964) I n s i s t s that c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n , u n t i l now "neglected", should be described i n d e t a i l . This s i t u a t i o n has been remedied to some degree i n recent years, although transformationalists have not redefined the scope of t h e i r l i n g u i s t i c enquiry. S o c i o l i n g u i s t s do not argue that t r a d i t i o n a l l i n g u i s t i c theory i s no longer relevant, but rather that the s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c data might be linked i n some way to the e x i s t i n g theory, and may i n c i t e some changes i n the theory. For, ...just as transformational theory could absorb predecessors and handle s t r u c t u r a l relationships 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 -ships with 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 that w i l l require a broader theory to absorb and handle them. (Hymes, 1971:273) Hymes (1971) proposed the term "communicative competence" as the focus 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) underlying knowledge of s o c i a l appropriate-ness as well as (2) underlying knowledge of grammatical structure. Relevant factors include a t t i t u d e s , values and motivations related to a l l aspects of language, and the i n t e r a c t i o n of language with s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l norms. A c q u i s i t i o n of such competence i s a function of the s o c i a l i z a t i o n process. The c h i l d i s exposed to l i n g u i s t i c input iji the context of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n rather than adjacent to i t . The knowledge of which Hymes speaks i s vast, gathered from the experience of every s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n that the speaker enters. Goffman (1964) finds i t hard to imagine a s o c i a l v a r i a b l e that 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 rules of grammar and appropriateness of speech that are shared by other members and that govern t h e i r speech behavior. Phenomena which emerged through i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the i n t e r -a ction of s o c i o c u l t u r a l and 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 data. Description of the nature of these phenomena i s abundant and diverse, covering issues such as: d i g l o s s i a , a s i t u a t i o n where two or more v a r i e t i e s of the same language are used by the same speaker under d i f f e r e n t conditions (Ferguson, 1964b); "baby-talk" modifications i n language that an adult implements when addressing a young c h i l d (Berko Gleason, 1973); terms of address, connoting intimacy or condescension (e.g. French t u ) , formality or reverence 19 (e.g. French vous) (Brown & Gilman, 1960); and the use of an intimate, casual or formal s t y l e of speech when addressing p a r t i c i p a n t s of various ages, s o c i a l statuses or occupational roles (Joos, 1964). Hymes, making note of the pervasiveness of s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c phenomena states 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 speaking, to an unchanging monotony that would preclude i n d i c a t i o n of respect, insolence, mock seriousness, humor, ro l e distance and intimacy by switching from one mode of speech to another. (Hymes, 1972:38) A closer examination of t h i s statement w i l l c l a r i f y some of the fundamental c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a "broad" view of communication. The community to which Hymes refer s i s the speech community, an aggregate whose members share at l e a s t a single speech v a r i e t y , as well as knowledge of the constraints which govern i t s appropriate use. The community i s characterized by regular interactions 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 established and maintained. The rules of appropriateness must be shared, so that members can both encode and decode the s o c i a l meaning i n t h e i r messages. For example, the English speaking community i n Quebec constitutes one speech community, while a group of automobile mechanics working at the same garage constitutes another. Hymes gives several examples of d i f f e r e n t ways of speaking, which within a p a r t i c u l a r speech community constitute a verbal r e p e r t o i r e . This repertoire contains a l l the acceptable ways of formulating messages, that i s , the t o t a l i t y of l i n g u i s t i c forms regular l y employed i n the course of communicative i n t e r a c t i o n among members. V a r i e t i e s i n the repertoire carry a l t e r n a t i v e s of l e x i c a l , semantic, s y n t a c t i c , phonological and p a r a l i n g u i s t i c features. To indicate respect, for example, a member would consider the alternates and choose the ones which conventionally s i g n a l his i n t e n t i o n . In t h i s case the form the message takes may be slower than normal rate, l e x i c a l l y and 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 con t r o l l e d i n intonation. It i s important to remember that the composition of the repertoire w i l l be d i f f e r e n t for d i f f e r e n t speech communities and that not a l l members of a community have access to a l l v a r i e t i e s i n the r e p e r t o i r e . Hymes coins the term " d i f f e r e n t i a l 20 competence" to account f o r two members of a speech community whose knowledge 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 . An example i s provided by Bloomfield, who described the language of two members of the Menomini. The f i r s t was a man of f o r t y whose use of Menomini was "atrocious." He used a small vocabulary, few i n f l e c t i o n s and only few sentence constructions. The other was a woman who spoke a " b e a u t i f u l and highly idiomatic Menomini" (Bloomfield, 1927:394). Having established the notions of speech community and verbal repertoire, we must now consider the communicative s i t u a t i o n i t s e l f . The s i t u a t i o n refers to a l l the elements of s o c i a l and l i n g u i s t i c importance that surround the communicative i n t e r a c t i o n . Formally, the comonents include: p a r t i c p a n t s — s e n d e r ( s ) and r e c e i v e r ( s ) ; c h a n n e l — spoken, written or sign language; c o d e — l i n g u i s t i c and/or para-l i n g u i s t i c ; s e t t i n g — l o c a l e i n which the action accurs, e.g. the home, on a bus, i n a t e l e v i s i o n studio; f o r m — s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the code; and t o p i c — t h e subject matter of the i n t e r a c t i o n (Hymes, 1962, 1964a; Ervin-Tripp, 1964, 1969). Focus on any one of these components would reveal the relevant features of that component and the range of possible a l t e r n a t i v e s . In a d d i t i o n , the r e l a t i o n s h i p between components can also be investigated. For example, we might ask what topics of conversation 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 topic i f one of the p a r t i c i p a n t s was replaced by another ind i v i d u a l ? Such a comparison would help describe the rules of communication by i l l u s t r a t i n g s p e c i f i c features of the s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n that can t r i g g e r a change, i n t h i s case a change i n p a r t i c i p a n t s . 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 able to evaluate the s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s present and on t h i s basis select from h i s repertoire of alternate forms that which w i l l not only be appropriate, but also match h i s communicative intention. The a b i l i t y to select from among the alternates i s known as "code-switching" or "style-switching." The l a t t e r term posited by Joos (1967), w i l l be used i n the remainder of t h i s report. Several methods have been employed to investigate s t y l e -switching. 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 l i n g u i s t i c 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 only only demonstrate that a l t e r i n g the components of the i n t e r a c t i o n w i l l y i e l d 21 l i n g u i s t i c v a r i a t i o n , but also show that much of the v a r i a t i o n i s systematic. In terms of d e s c r i p t i o n , studies attempt to show when, how and to what extent speakers modify t h e i r speech as a function of p a r t i c u l a r variables i n a given s o c i a l context. In terms of explanation, studies are designed to e s t a b l i s h the norms and rules of a given speech community. According to Hymes (1974), analysis of s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c data w i l l help to e s t a b l i s h the rules of communication. He suggests that f i r s t , one should i d e n t i f y the components of an i n t e r a c t i o n and second, one should discover the r e l a t i o n s h i p between these components. It i s within t h i s framework that several important aspects 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 reviewed. Participants That speakers possess a broad communicative competence which permits them to use grammatically correct and s o c i a l l y appropriate forms of language has already been established. What th i s competence e n t a i l s can be exemplified by focussing on one of the components of the s i t u a t i o n , f or example, the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n a two-way face-to-face i n t e r a c t i o n . In any act of communication, there i s a "sender" and one or more "receivers" who together may be c a l l e d " i n t e r l o c u t o r s " (Hymes, 1962). The sender i s the person whose turn i t i s to convey some information. The receiver i s the audience and provides the feedback which shapes the sender's output. It can be expected that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between sender and receiver i s r e c i p r o c a l , for instance, doctor-patient or teacher-student. Every i n d i v i d u a l has a number of s o c i a l i d e n t i t i e s , each with a prescribed a l l o c a t i o n of rights and duties (Goodenough, 1965). Some i d e n t i t i e s are ascribed by v i r t u e of a person's age, sex and/or r a c i a l o r i g i n . Other i d e n t i t i e s are achieved, for example, profession, acquired s k i l l and/or s o c i a l status. S o c i a l 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. In a two-way i n t e r a c t i o n , the sender may adopt superior or i n f e r i o r standing. Gumperz (1972) states that the features of status and role are not permanent q u a l i t i e s of speakers, but rather abstract communicative symbols. Indeed, these a t t r i b u t e s mark important s o c i a l information that must be considered i n both the encoding and decoding of messages. It seems that communcatively competent speakers use these 22 symbols to create a controlled impression (Edwards, 1976). That people can and do decode the s o c i a l import of a message has been established by Lambert (1976). Goffman (1964) points out that rather than the attr i b u t e s themselves, i t i s the value placed on these a t t r i b u t e s that i s considered i n a communicative i n t e r a c t i o n . Selection of a given i d e n t i t y depends on the nature of the s o c i a l s i tuation—what the a c t i v i t y i s , where i t takes place, who else i s i n attendance, the purpose of the i n t e r a c t i o n . For example, a man can assume the role of doctor i n h i s o f f i c e , or consumer when he brings his car to a garage to be serviced. In e i t h e r s i t u a t i o n , t h i s person i s cognizant of his r i g h t s and o b l i g a t i o n s . The sender, when se l e c t i n g the form of the message from his or her r e p e r t o i r e , a n t i c i p a t e s the q u a l i t i e s of the person who i s to receive that message. The e f f e c t of r e l a t i v e s o c i a l status of the sender and receiver has been outlined by Brown and Gilman (1960) i n t h e i r study of forms and address. They show how the use of pronouns i n French, I t a l i a n 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 nonreciprocal usage of the respectual vous and f a m i l i a r tu (and corresponding terms i n I t a l i a n and German) i s demonstrated. In nonreciprocal usage, one of the p a r t i c i p a n t s , the s o c i a l superior, addressed the other with tu and i n return i s addressed with vous. In r e c i p r o c a l usage, both members use the same pronoun, _tu_ to express intimacy and s o l i d a r i t y , and vous to i n d i c a t e a degree of formality. Ervin-Tripp c i t e s the example of the utterances of technicians i n a u n i v e r s i t y medical laboratory: J . J . Hey, Len, shoot the chart to me, w i l l y a ? A.D. Oh by the way, Doctor, could you leave that chart when you're through. In this example, J . J . took the option of using an informal address form and speech s t y l e when coversing with a physician. In contrast A.D. chose a more formal and rank-marked s t y l e ( E r v i n - T r i p p , 1976:32). Code Code may be defined as a systematic set of signals which co-occur i n a p a r t i c u l a r s e t t i n g . It 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 that would be appropriate i n a given s i t u a t i o n (Ervin-Tripp, 1964). For example, Gumperz (1961, 1962) distinguishes between vernacular, the speech used i n the home, and superposed v a r i e t y , the norm i n other s o c i a l 23 s i t u a t i o n s . V a r i a t i o n i n code can be broken down into changes that occur at the phonological, l e x i c a l , 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 language. Joos (1967) outlines f i v e s t y l e s of discourse i n English which correspond to p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n s and which are characterized by a c e r t a i n set 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 features. These f i v e s t y l e s r e f l e c t the formality of a s i t u a t i o n ranging from intimate, casual and consultative to formal and frozen. Each s t y l e has a "code-l a b e l " , a l i s t of conventions that serves to i d e n t i f y i t . For example, consultative s t y l e has two defining features. F i r s t , the sender supplies adequate background information i n the content of his or her message, and second, the addressee p a r t i c i p a t e s continuously i n the i n t e r a c t i o n . Code labels would include receiver insertions l i k e , "Oh, I see," or "That's r i g h t . " Casual s t y l e i s reserved for friends and i n s i d e r s and i s characterized by an absence of background information and no r eliance on receiver p a r t i c i p a t i o n . E l l i p s i s and slang are two features which serve to s i g n a l t h i s s t y l e . The most obvious defining feature of formal s t y l e i s the lack of receiver p a r t i c i p a t i o n . This may be due to the size of the group that the sender i s addressing, who i s being addressed or perhaps the purpose of the i n t e r a c t i o n . For instance, conversation between strangers usually begins i n formal s t y l e . Code labels include may, as i n "May I help you?", one (instead of I_, me, my) as i n "One finds i n the l i t e r a t u r e . . . . " In the formal frame, the text i s usually organized or practiced and presentation i s f l u e n t , with precise pronunciation and elaborate grammar. Frozen s t y l e i s found mostly i n written material where the p a r t i c i p a n t s are l i k e l y to remain strangers, as i n a novel. Intimate s t y l e , which excludes a l l public information, aims at reminding the addressee of some f e e l i n g that the speaker has by extracting some pattern from a previous stated casual sentence. The message meaning i n t h i s s t y l e i s often conveyed by in t o n a t i o n . These f i v e s t y l e s represent ways of speaking that are d i r e c t l y linked to s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n s . An e s s e n t i a l point of Joos' thesis i s that style-switching appears i n the language of monolinguals, who switch between v a r i e t i e s of a single language. Labov's research i n New York City revealed a speech community whose members exhibited systematic style-switching at the phonological l e v e l . Evidence came from recording the frequency of occurrence of 24 f i v e phenomes, for example, the frequency with which the f i n a l or pre-consonantal / r / was pronounced i n words l i k e guard, bare and beer (Labov, 1966). Results indicated that use of / r / correlated with s p e c i f i c aspects of the s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n . That i s , frequency of. occurrence of p a r t i c u l a r phonemes correlated with occupation, ethnic group and socioeconomic status. Labov also found that phonological v a r i a t i o n was c l o s e l y t i e d to the formality of the s i t u a t i o n , i . e . / r / occurred less frequently i n casual speech and more frequently i n formal contexts. A large part of the vocabulary of any given code i s shared by a l l i t s speakers, but there are also c e r t a i n sets of l e x i c a l items r e s t r i c t e d to the speech of c e r t a i n groups within a speech community (Laver & 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 , experience or occupation of the p a r t i c i p a n t s ; technical vocabulary i s usually confined to those who s p e c i a l i z e i n the p a r t i c u l a r t o p i c . Minority groups are known to have developed s p e c i a l vocabularies which r e f l e c t s i m i l a r i n t e r e s t s as well as reinforce group cohesion. Use of slang or c o l l o q u i a l terminology i s a powerful s o c i a l marker, often related to age of i t s users. Use of outdated slang also serves to i d e n t i f y speakers. One s t y l e that has been intensely investigated i s one 4 frequently c a l l e d the "baby t a l k r e g i s t e r " . In the e a r l i e s t discussion of baby t a l k r e g i s t e r , Ferguson (1964a) claimed that i n many cultures, including Arab, Comanche, English and 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 adults addressing i n f a n t s . The formal features of t h i s s t y l e include a change i n lexicon, 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 , simplication of consonant c l u s t e r s , general l a b i a l i z a t i o n and a r i s e i n fundamental frequency of the voice. Examples of l e x i c a l alternates i n English baby-talk s t y l e are words l i k e bunny, night-night and bye-bye, which are modified versions of adult forms (Ervin-Tripp, 1969). Baby-talk i n some languages, Berber for example, possess a much greater separate lexicon than does English baby-talk (Bynon, 1977). 4 This r e g i s t e r i n English has been described and discussed i n great d e t a i l . See Andersen's annotated bibliography (Snow & Ferguson, 1977). 25 Both Hymes (1974b) and C r y s t a l (1971) d i r e c t our attention 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 p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n s . V a r i a t i o n may occur i n l e v e l of p i t c h , high or low; vocal q u a l i t y , breathy or c l e a r ; volume, soft or loud; and/or speech rate, slow or f a s t . Reduction i n rate of speech and increase i n l e v e l of p i t c h are features which have been i d e n t i f i e d i n adults' speech to c h i l d r e n (Ferguson, 1964, 1977; Andersen & Johnson 1973; Berko Gleason, 1973), nurses' speech to h o s p i t a l patients and speech addressed to foreigners (Snow & Ferguson, 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 existence of an underlying system governing the choice of alternates i n a r e p e r t o i r e . Furthermore, we can see that not a l l combinations of codes and p a r t i c i p a n t s can occur. A S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c View of ASL Discussion so f a r has focussed on the nature of style-switching as i t pertains to spoken languages of the world. Researchers have also presented evidence supporting the existence of style-switching i n ASL (Stokoe, 1973; Woodward, 1971, 1973; Ci c o u r e l , 1978). In accordance with Hymes' (1974) paradigm for e s t a b l i s h i n g the rules of communication, investigators have suc c e s s f u l l y i d e n t i f i e d the components of ASL communicative i n t e r a c t i o n and described, a l b e i t anecdotally, the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the components. Discussion now turns 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 takes on an extended meaning i n ASL. Deafness, more than just a physical phenomenon " . . . i s a c u l t u r a l phenomenon i n which s o c i a l , emotional, l i n g u i s t i c , and i n t e l l e c t u a l patterns and problems are i n e x t r i c a b l y bound together" (Schlesinger & Meadow, 1971:1). Deaf i n d i v i d u a l s who so choose consider themselves members of the deaf community. Their common language, ASL, i s one of the c e n t r a l cohesive elements of the group. Cicourel and Boese (1972a, 1972b), Stokoe (1960, 1978) and others point out that not a l l i n d i v i d u a l s within the deaf community acquire ASL i n the same manner. Differences i n the circumstances of ASL a c q u i s i t i o n mark the difference 26 between native signers and non-native signers. The native signer i s one who learned ASL as a f i r s t language, i . e . during childhood from deaf family members. This person was therefore able to "learn various s u b t l e t i e s of signing...and r e l i e s on them f o r communicating intimacy, emotion, sublety, double meaning...which a second language signer would have great d i f f i c u l t y acquiring unless he spends a considerable amount of time among the deaf" (Cicourel & Boese, 1972:32). Furthermore, the native signer i s l i k e l y to use v a r i e t i e s of ASL which do not correspond to English syntax, while the non-native signer would t y p i c a l l y r e l y on English structure. Meadow (1972) outlines three periods i n the l i f e of a person that may mark his or her entrance into the deaf community: (1) infancy, when "the milestones i n sign language a c q u i s i t i o n p a r a l l e l the milestones i n spoken language a c q u i s i t i o n " (Schlesinger, 1971:206), (2) the time of enrollment i n a r e s i d e n t i a l school f o r the deaf, where the c h i l d may learn sign language from peers, and (3) the time of graduation form high school 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. Some hearing people also gain entrance to the deaf community—those whose parent(s) or other family member(s) are deaf, a person married to a deaf spouse, a teacher or i n d i v i d u a l working with the deaf. Participants i n ASL communicative i n t e r a c t i o n The d i s t i n c t i o n between native and non-native signers i s an important one because i t constitutes part of each participant's s o c i a l i d e n t i t y , which as we saw e a r l i e r determines his r e l a t i v e s o c i a l status. Kantor ( c i t e d i n Wilbur, 1979) demonstrates that signers (native and non-native) are able to i d e n t i f y other signers as native or non-native. Cues which influenced t h e i r decisions were hands, rhythm of signing, kinds of signs, f a c i a l expression, body movement, l o c a t i o n of signs 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 hearing person. It seems clear that some of these aspects 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 . The relevant s o c i a l r o l e aspects include: language (as noted above); l e v e l of education (few deaf people obtain high school c e r t i f i c a t e s and even fewer attend college or u n i v e r s i t y ) ; s o c i a l c l a s s ; occupation and income. As explained 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 part responsible for the nature of that i n t e r a c t i o n . Code A number of studies have demonstrated that v a r i e t i e s of ASL e x i s t . Stokoe (1970, 1973) using Ferguson's (1959) paper on d i g l o s s i a as a model, demarcates High and Low versions of ASL and Manual English, where Manual English refers to the combination of signs and f i n g e r -s p e l l i n g that represents a morpheme to morpheme correspondence with spoken English. He proposes a two-dimensional continuum, extending from formal and informal Manual English to formal and informal ASL. Within t h i s continuum, signers have several v a r i e t i e s a v a i l a b l e to them for d i f f e r e n t communicative contexts. For example, the High v a r i e t y , which i s on the Manual English end 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 , while the Low v a r i e t y , ASL, would be found i n conversation with family and f r i e n d s . These p a r t i c u l a r contexts r e f l e c t v a r i a t i o n based on the formality of the J—J s i t u a t i o n . On the other dimension, the range extends from "home signs," developed and used by small groups when not i n contact with other groups, to standardized l e x i c o n , syntax and formational aspects of sign language. Style-switching within Manual English or ASL i s consistent with what we know about the influence p a r t i c u l a r settings or p a r t i c i p a n t s have on the form of the message i n vocal languages. Woodward (1973a, 1974) describes Pidgin Signed English (PSE) which refers to intermediate v a r i e t i e s of sign language along the continuum from ASL to Signed English, where the syntactic order may be close to English, but i n f l e c t i o n s and other structures have been modified. Woodward investigated the a p p l i c a t i o n of three syntactic and morphological rules — agent-beneficiary incorporation, negative incorporation and verb r e d u p l i c a t i o n — and found an i m p l i c a t i o n a l hierarchy. Those v a r i e t i e s which are considered most E n g l i s h l i k e , have fewer incorporations and reduplications than those more ASL-like, which allow for a wider range of a p p l i c a t i o n of these r u l e s . 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 correlated with four variables related to s o c i a l i d e n t i t y of the p a r t i c i p a n t s . These variables include: (1) whether or not the signer i s deaf, (2) whether or not the signer has deaf parents, (3) whether or 28 not the signer has college experience (applicable to deaf signers only). Results i n d i c a t e that one i s l i k e l y to f i n d a deaf person, a person with deaf parents and a person who learned signing before s i x years of age using v a r i e t i e s that approach ASL. Conversely, one i s more apt to f i n d a hearing signer, a signer with hearing parents and a person who learned sign language a f t e r age s i x using v a r i e t i e s that do not c l o s e l y resemble ASL. Another observation about PSE i s that i t i s signed i n a more r e s t r i c t e d and more ce n t r a l i z e d signing space and with considerably l e s s f a c i a l expression (Woodward & Markowicz, c i t e d i n Wilbur, 1979). The v a r i e t i e s along the ASL-Signed English continuum r e f l e c t the l i n g u i s t i c tenet that languages i n contact influence each other by borrowing forms and/or structures. In the case of E n g l i s h and ASL, however, the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s one-sided. While ASL borrows l i n g u i s t i c patterns from E n g l i s h , ASL has an i n s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on English. Bragg (1973) acknowledges the influence of E n g l i s h on ASL i n h i s discussion of Ameslish. He f e e l s that i t i s a combination of ASL and English that gives a r e a l i s t i c picture of the communication process carried on by deaf people i n the United States. Furthermore, consistent with Stokoe and Woodward, Bragg f e e l s that the l e v e l or style of Ameslish a signer uses depends on the s i t u a t i o n a l context. Style-switching i n ASL Further to the r e v e l a t i o n that within the r e p e r t o i r e of the deaf community members, there e x i s t d i s t i n c t v a r i e t i e s of ASL, studies have revealed evidence of style-switching. Meadow (1972) observed style-switching i n a 2 1/2-year-old hearing c h i l d , son of an educated deaf man and a hearing woman. A 15-year-old deaf f o s t e r s i s t e r , who l i v e d i n the home, used a less E n g l i s h l i k e v a r i e t y of ASL. The c h i l d was seen to switch from an E n g l i s h l i k e v a r i e t y of ASL with hi s father to spoken English with his 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 with hi s s i s t e r . E r t i n g (1978) witnessed style-switching i n a preschool class for the deaf where eight deaf c h i l d r e n and two teachers u t i l i z e d at least two language v a r i e t i e s , switching according to the formality or informality of the s i t u a t i o n . The deaf teacher's aide and the c h i l d r e n used a formal signed English during an a c t i v i t y where s p e c i f i c English 29 constructions were being taught. In the same manner children's requests during unstructured a c t i v i t i e s were more casual and ASL-like than question forms observed during a structured time, the l a t t e r being more E n g l i s h l i k e . A study by Cicourel (1978) explored style-switching of four native signers using B r i t i s h Sign Language (BSL). Each signer was required to t e l l the same story to the next signer u n t i l the fourth person signed i t back to the f i r s t signer. In a c t u a l i t y , the f i r s t signer produced the story to each of the others. From the videotape, changes i n the i c o n i c form of the signs were noticed as the key subject a l t e r e d his production i n accordance with his perceptions of each receiver i n turn. The d i f f e r e n t editions were said to range from a highly E n g l i s h l i k e v a r i e t y of BSL to a more BSL-like v a r i e t y . Changes included l e x i c a l , syntactic and semantic s i m p l i f i c a t i o n and elimination of f i n g e r s p e l l i n g . Studies of style-switching i n ASL (or BSL) have intended to provide: (1) an account of d i f f e r e n t v a r i e t i e s of ASL which form the continuum from ASL to Signed-English, (2) a p r o f i l e of the s o c i a l aspects of the i n t e r a c t i o n that e l i c i t one of the many v a r i e t i e s , (3) d e t a i l e d reports of when style-switching was noticed, and (4) i n the case of Cicourel's i n v e s t i g a t i o n , what aspects of BSL were varied i n the s e l f - e d i t i n g procedure. In r e a l i t y , these studies have barely scratched the surface 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 features of sign language and the s o c i a l aspects of signed i n t e r a c t i o n s . There are several questions which have yet to be systematically investigated. The most g l a r i n g gap i n the studies described 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 formational c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of ASL that 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 for a d e t a i l e d i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the aspects of the code at formational, l e x i c a l , syntactic and p a r a l i n g u i s t i c l e v e l s of ASL as they i n t e r a c t with each of the other components of the communicative s i t u a t i o n , such as s e t t i n g , topic and formality. An inquiry of this nature would delimit rules of communication i n ASL and expand upon what i s now known about the' language of the deaf. 30 Statement of the Problem The claim of the present i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s that users of American Sign Language modify t h e i r signing systematically, i n response to v a r i a t i o n of elements i n the s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n . Furthermore, the systematic modification occurs at most of the l i n g u i s t i c and para-l i n g u i s t i c l e v e l s of ASL. Review of the relevant l i t e r a t u r e has demonstrated that such modification, or "style-switching" i s a phenomenon manifested by competent users of natural languages of the world. It has also been established that ASL can be and i s considered a natural language of the world. It follows then, that competent users of ASL w i l l e x h i b it systematic style-switching as a function of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n . To show that t h i s i s the case, t h i s study w i l l examine and 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 of a native ASL user's signing under d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l conditions; that i s , i t w i l l focus on the i n t e r r e l a t i o n between code and p a r t i c i p a n t s . It i s not within the scope of t h i s preliminary study to determine i f the e f f e c t s of manipulating these s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c var ia bl es are systematic. The f i r s t step i s to f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h the existence of style-switching by providing organized evidence of formal parameters of ASL that vary and suggesting what s o c i a l variables triggered the v a r i a t i o n . CHAPTER 2 METHOD Selection of the P a r t i c i p a n t s The p r i n c i p a l subject, G.Y. who acted as sender, was selected as a native signer. G.Y., a 32-year-old male, was born with a profound b i l a t e r a l hearing l o s s . Although h i s parents were not deaf, G.Y. acquired ASL from deaf family members p r i o r to s i x years of age. He attended Gallaudet College and has been teaching i n a school f o r the deaf. His primary source of communication i s ASL. The other f i v e p a r t i c i p a n t s , who acted as recei v e r s , were chosen on the basis of t h e i r s o c i a l status r e l a t i v e to the p r i n c i p a l subject. Each sender-receiver p a i r represented a unique r e l a t i o n s h i p . A l l receivers were f a m i l i a r to the p r i n c i p a l subject p r i o r to the in v e s t i g a t i o n . A b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of each of the receivers follows. (1) D.A., a 26-year-old male, has had a severe hearing loss since b i r t h . He learned 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 teaching at a school f o r the deaf. D.A. uses o r a l speech as his primary means of communication. (2) S.E., a 37-year-old female, has had severe hearing loss since b i r t h . She acquired ASL a f t e r s i x years of age. S.E. i s a teacher's aide at a school f o r the deaf and uses ASL as her primary means of communication. (3) E.I., a 35-year-old female, has had a severe hearing loss since the age of ten months. She acquired ASL from friends a f t e r s i x years of age. E.I. attended u n i v e r s i t y and has been teaching at a school f o r the deaf. She uses both oral speech and ASL as means of communication. (4) B.U. i s a 52-year-old male, with a profound congenital hearing l o s s . He acquired ASL from family members p r i o r to s i x years of age. B.U. has been a counselor at a community centre f o r the deaf, and uses ASL as his primary means of communication. 31 32 (5) H.O., a 13-year-old female, has had a profound hearing loss since b i r t h . She learned ASL at school before she was s i x years o l d . She has been attending a school f o r the deaf and uses ASL as her primary means of communication. The assumed re l a t i o n s h i p between the sender and each receiver i n terms of s o c i a l status i s shown i n Figure 4. The s i x p a r t i c i p a n t s are ranked from highest to lowest on the basis of age, occupation and assumed command of ASL. Figure 4. Ranking of the six p a r t i c i p a n t s i n terms of age, occupation and command of ASL. (The sender's i n i t i a l s are Rank Highest underlined.) Age B.U. S.E. E.I. G.Y. Lowest D.A. H.O. Occupation B.U. G.Y., E.I., D.A. S.E. H.O. Proficiency B.U. G. Y. E.I. S.E. D.A. H. O. Selection of the Tasks Two well-structured tasks, a paraphrase task and a puzzle task, were selected f o r presentation to each of the f i v e r e c e i v e r s . The introduction to each of these main tasks was counted separately as an i n s t r u c t i o n task. A question task was added to e l i c i t receiver p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The i n s t r u c t i o n task was low i n structure, i . e . the sender was at l i b e r t y to generate both form and content of the message. The schedule of tasks was the same f o r a l l r e c e i v e r s . (1) Instruction 1 (2) Paraphrase 1 (3) Question 1 (4) Paraphrase 2 (5) Question 2 (6) I n s t r u c t i o n 2 (7) Puzzle task Paraphrase task The theme of a short story found i n the 1955 e d i t i o n of A  Treasury of Humor and Toastmaster's Handbook was modified to increase i t s contemporary appeal. The story was selected because i t contained a 33 wide range of l i n g u i s t i c components that would require a signer to use a v a r i e t y of s t r u c t u r a l modifications of ASL. The story appears i n i t s English version i n Appendix B. The sender was given a copy of the story to review two weeks before he was required to present i t to the r e c e i v e r s . He was informed that he was not to memorize the story, but rather to become f a m i l i a r with i t so that he could paraphrase the content on presentation. The story was divided i n t o two parts at a l o g i c a l break i n the p l o t . This i n t e r v a l provided the opportunity for receiver p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and w i l l be further delineated i n the d e s c r i p t i o n of the Question Task. Puzzle task In t h i s task, the sender was required to guide the receiver through i n s t r u c t i o n s which led to completion of a puzzle. The puzzle was a Soma cube, a set of p l a s t i c blocks representing d i f f e r e n t possible combinations of four small cubes which, when arranged c o r r e c t l y , formed a three inch cube. Each shape was painted one of three colours to aid the sender's d e s c r i p t i o n . The sender was given the key to completion of the puzzle two weeks p r i o r to the presentation so that he could become f a m i l i a r with the prescribed method of constructing the cube. Question task, 1 and 2 Two questions were inserted into the Paraphrase Task i n order to create a more communicatively natural i n t e r a c t i o n . The element of turn-taking ensured that the sender would have an active partner, thereby r e l i e v i n g him of some of the communication load. In addition, reversing the role of sender and receiver allowed the o r i g i n a l sender to confirm or readjust h i s hypothesis regarding h i s partner's proficiency and s t y l e of signing. Sample questions were provided f o r the sender, but he was free to a l t e r them. Each question was to address the preceding segment of the story. The receiver-turned-sender was required to respond i n ASL to the question. The sample questions appear i n Appendix B. Instruction tasks, 1 and 2 In t h i s task the sender was asked to explain to the receiver the nature of the i n t e r a c t i o n and the roles that each of them would 34 adopt. For example, i n Instruction I, the receiver was t o l d that he or she would be required to watch the story that the sender would sign and to answer two questions, one i n the middle and one at the end of the story. In Instruction 2, the receiver was t o l d that he or she would be asked to manipulate the pieces of the puzzle while following the sender's i n s t r u c t i o n s . The content of Instructions 1 and 2 was not formally provided for the sender. He was encouraged to explain i n h i s own words what would transpire i n the session. In contrast to both the Paraphrase and the Puzzle Tasks, Instruction 1 and 2 were expected to e l i c i t more widespread v a r i a t i o n i n both form and content. C o l l e c t i o n of the Data Five sessions were arranged i n a recording studio where each dyad, sender and receiver, was videotaped separately. The sessions were planned so that the sender signed the complete program (seven tasks) to each receiver i n one s i t t i n g . The order of presentation was as follows: G.Y. the p r i n c i p a l sender signed to (1) D.A., (2) S.E., (3) E.I., (4) H.O., and (5) B.U. The p a r t i c i p a n t s were brought into the studio and given t h e i r positions, while the crew arranged the cameras. Each p a r t i c i p a n t sat i n a low-backed chair separated by a distance of four f e e t . The chairs were oriented so that the p a r t i c i p a n t s were facing each other squarely. Two Ampex Black and White, 1" plumbicon studio cameras were focussed on the p a r t i c i p a n t s , one providing a straight-on view of the sender, the other providing a straight-on view of the r e c e i v e r . The representation from both cameras encompassed the complete range of the signing space of the two p a r t i c i p a n t s . A l l the filming was c o n t r o l l e d by an experienced producer from a booth adjoining the studio. The two camera views were arranged on a diagonally s p l i t - s c r e e n . A l l f i v e sessions were taped on a Sony 8650 1/2" VTR. The i n v e s t i g a t o r , who was present i n the studio during a l l sessions, cued the p r i n c i p a l signer to begin. Following the c o l l e c t i o n of a l l the data, the o r i g i n a l tape was dubbed onto a JVC Cassette using a Richmond H i l l 2004 Video Switcher and a Panasonic NV8310 VHS Video-Cassette Recorder. A video d i g i t a l time clock generator was used during dubbing to i n s e r t , i n the bottom of the picture, a d i g i t a l account of the time of each session i n minutes, seconds and lOOths of seconds. 35 Transcription of the Data Each session was viewed on a 19" t e l e v i s i o n monitor which was connected to a JVC HR6700U Video Cassette Recorder. The playback mode was equipped with a slow-motion co n t r o l which enabled the viewer to a l t e r the speed of the tape. Each signed segment was transcribed separately by the p r i n c i p a l transcriber, a congenitally deaf u n i v e r s i t y student who uses both ASL and oral speech i n d a i l y communication. The t r a n s c r i p t i o n included f i v e main components: (1) An ASL-to-English l i t e r a l t r a n s c r i p t i o n of each sign was made using part of the notational system outlined i n Klima & B e l l u g i (1979). See Appendix A. (2) The boundaries of each signed utterance were i d e n t i f i e d by specifying the nature of the pauses i n the corpus. A notational system based on Covington (1973) was adopted for i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the pauses. See Appendix A. (3) The duration of each utterance, measured to the nearest tenth of a second was recorded. (4) The duration of the pauses between utterances, measured to the nearest tenth of a second was recorded. (5) An English gloss was provided for a l l signed utterances. The p r i n c i p a l t r a n s c r i b e r viewed each session, segment by segment. She approached the task by tr y i n g to locate the general meaning of the signs, and then proceded to e s t a b l i s h utterance boundaries and provide the l i t e r a l t r a n s c r i p t i o n and English gloss. Periodic r e l i a b i l i t y checks performed by the p r i n c i p a l i n v e s t i g a t o r included utterance and segment t r a n s c r i p t i o n s and juncture 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 in v e s t i g a t o r on the ASL-to English t r a n s c r i p t i o n and utterance boundaries was greater than 90%. Analysis 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 utterance was examined f o r evidence concerning the following seven performance parameters: (1) Lexicon - counts were made of the number of d i f f e r e n t signs and fing e r s p e l l e d words and the t o t a l number of signs and fi n g e r s p e l l e d words present i n each utterance^. A type:token r a t i o was calculated For the remainder of t h i s report, reference to number of d i f f e r e n t signs and number of t o t a l signs w i l l also include the number of fingers p e l l e d words. 36 on the basis of these two measurements to determine f l e x i b i l i t y i n choice of l e x i c a l items. (2) Morphology - The number of incorporations, reduced forms and ind e x i c a l references were counted i n each utterance. The raw numbers were then converted to a percentage based on the t o t a l number of signs. (3) Syntax - Calculations were made of the t o t a l number of utterances, number of propositions or d i f f e r e n t ideas i n each utterance, number of signs per proposition, and the number of rep e t i t i o n s per utterance. Repetitions included 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 restructuring of an idea. (4) Rate - Measurements were taken of the t o t a l duration of each utterance to the nearest tenth of a second, both with and without pauses, as well as the duration of pauses between utterances. In addition, the number of signs per second and the number of propositions per second were calculated. (5) Headti 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 utterance including head t i l t s forward, backward, to the signer's l e f t and to the signer's r i g h t . Percentages of the d i r e c t i o n of the h e a d t i l t per t o t a l number of t i l t s were calculated. (6) Body Movement - Counts were taken of the number of shoulder r a i s e s , the number of body turns; from a neutral p o s i t i o n to the signer's l e f t and/or r i g h t , and the number of complete changes i n body i n c l i n a t i o n ; from the l e f t to the right and/or from the right to the l e f t . (7) Amplitude - The number of times the signer's hands extended beyond the normal signing area were counted. Two add i t i o n a l parameters; f a c i a l expression and eye gaze were planned f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the ana l y s i s . However, the representation on videotape did not allow f o r a clear view of the f a c i a l area of the pa r t i c i p a n t s . In addition to counts, percentages and proportions based on each utterance separately, scores f o r each performance parameter were grouped by task and by receiver. Means and standard deviations were derived f o r each performance parameter across receivers, f o r each task separately. Task scores f o r each receiver were then compared to the mean. The analysis y i e l d s the following information: (1) i d e n t i -f i c a t i o n of variants within 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 across tasks and across receivers, 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 relates 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 receivers. Hypotheses Task variables It was f e l t that differences between tasks would disclose elements of ASL that characterize formal and informal signing. For example, utterances i n the Instructions (form and content established by the sender) might have a higher type-token r a t i o for l e x i c a l items, more propositions per utterance, a f a s t e r rate of production and les s use of the non-sign channels than the more formal Paraphrase. Further-more, differences may ari s e between parts of the Paraphrase due to semantic content of the segments and/or a change i n the sender's hypo-thesis regarding the receiver's p r o f i c i e n c y i n ASL. Receiver variables It was predicted that each of the s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s , age, occupation and assumed p r o f i c i e n c y i n ASL, would contribute 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 general, the expected p r o f i l e for each receiver may be characterized as follows: (1) Lexicon - From highest to lowest ranking receiver, there w i l l be an increase i n the t o t a l number of signs used and a decrease i n the type:token r a t i o . (2) Morphology - From highest to lowest ranking receiver, there w i l l be a decrease i n the use of a l l the morphological devices. (3) Syntax - From highest to lowest ranking receiver, there w i l l be a decrease i n number of propositions per utterance and number of signs per proposition, and an increase i n number of repetitions per utterance. (4) Rate - From highest to lower ranking receiver, there w i l l be an increase i n duration of utterances, and a decrease i n number of signs per second and number of propositions per second. 38 (5) H e a d t i l t , (6) Body Movement, and (7) Amplitude - From highest to lowest ranking receiver, there w i l l be an increase 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 three of the o r i g i n a l seven tasks were analyzed: Instruction 1 (task 1), Paraphrase 1 (task 2), and Paraphrase 2 (task 4). Uninterpreted counts of each of the performance parameters defined i n Chapter 3 are tabulated i n Appendix C. Results are presented by sign and nonsign performance parameters. While the emphasis i s on receiver v a r i a b l e s , task differences are also discussed. Following t h i s , r e s u l t s are summarized according to receiver v a r i a b l e s , and then according to task. In a l l tables Receivers are l i s t e d (from l e f t to rig h t ) i n order of presentation by Sender. Performance Parameters Lexicon 6 The t o t a l number of signs signed by the Sender to each Receiver i n each task i s shown i n Table 1. The t o t a l counts across tasks show that the Sender signed the most i n d i v i d u a l signs (tokens) to H.O., the lowest ranked Receiver on a l l three variables of age, occupation and signing p r o f i c i e n c y (see Figure 4), and the fewest signs to E.I., who i s adjacent to or equal with the Sender on a l l three v a r i a b l e s . Total signs presented to H.O. and E.I. were, re s p e c t i v e l y , well above and well below the mean number of signs, while t o t a l signs presented to D.A., S.E. and B.U. were not far from the mean. The extent and d i r e c t i o n of the difference from the mean for H.O. and E.I. was maintained i n each task. In t h i s chapter, Sender and Receiver are c a p i t a l i z e d on anology with Speaker and Hearer i n discussion of speech acts. 39 40 Table 1. Total Number of Signs (Tokens) Used by Sender to Each Receiver i n Each Task. Receiver Task D.A. S.E. E.I. H.O. B.U. X 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 Total Across Tasks 170 189 149 212 183 180.6 Table 1 also shows that the Instruction task was considerably b r i e f e r than Paraphrase 1 or 2. This simply r e f l e c t s the nature of the tasks: Instruction 1 informed the Receiver that a story would be t o l d and a question would be asked, while Paraphrase 1 and 2 constituted the story i t s e l f . The r e l a t i v e l y equal si z e of Paraphrase 1 and Paraphrase 2 shows that the Sender chose to break the story i n about the middle i n order to address a question to the Receiver. These facts are r e f l e c t e d i n the r e l a t i v e number of signs for a l l f i v e Receivers, i n spite of the Receiver-differences observed. The Sender's type:token r a t i o i n signing each task to each Receiver i s displayed i n Table 2. This i s a measure of f l e x i b i l i t y i n choice of vocabulary items. The most dramatic Receiver difference i s seen i n the Instruction task, where there i s a very low type:token r a t i o for H.O. and E.I. This i s predicted for H.O., but not for E.I. In Paraphrase 1 there i s a lower type:token r a t i o for H.O. and S.E., but i t i s not so dramatic. Notice that t h i s measure does not vary systematically according to Receiver across tasks (although E.I. and S.E. are adjacent to each other on a l l three Receiver ranking scales, and H.O. and E.I. and S.E. are a l l female). Ove r a l l , the Sender exhibited a lower type:token r a t i o i n his signing to H.O. than i n his signing to the other four Receivers. 41 Table 2. Sender's Type:Token Ratio to Each Receiver i n Each Task. Receiver Task D.A. S.E. E.I. H.O. 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 Across Tasks 0.83 0.79 0.79 0.69 0.82 An i n t e r e s t i n g task difference can be seen here. There i s 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 Receivers i n the Instruction task. 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 high type:token r a t i o i n the Paraphrase tasks. This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y 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 very uniform across Receivers i n spite of the feedback the Sender has just had (task 3, not reported here). One i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s that the narrative nature of the Paraphrase tasks overrides Receiver v a r i a b l e s . An alternate i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Paraphrase 2 r e s u l t s i s that the Sender revised his o r i g i n a l estimate of Receiver pr o f i c i e n c y upwards on the basis of feedback, so that i n none of the f i v e cases did an assessment of low Receiver proficiency constrain the second part of the narr a t i v e . Morphology The degree to which the Sender used incorporation i n his signing i s shown i n Table 3. The proportion of incorporation r e f l e c t s small actual counts, between one and ten incorporations i n any one task to any one Receiver (see Appendix C). Incorporation r e s u l t s i n a more complex sign, and perhaps, le s s e x p l i c i t n e s s for someone not p r o f i c i e n t i n signing. 42 Table 3. Proportion of Incorporations to Total Signs Used by Sender with Each Receiver i n Each Task. Receiver Task D.A. S.E. E.I. H.O. 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 Across Tasks 0.077 0.074 0.061 0.071 0.060 0.069 Table 3 indicates that the Sender did not systematically modify the degree of incorporation i n his signing on the basis of a Receiver v a r i a b l e . If Paraphrase 2 has a l e v e l l i n g e f f e c t , as discussed above, the r e s u l t s can be interpreted d i f f e r e n t l y . The proportion of incorporations signed to H.O. i s c l e a r l y the lowest i n the f i r s t two tasks measured. This i s predicted by the Receiver variables outlined i n Chapter 2. It i s more d i f f i c u l t to see why the Sender used so few incorporations i n his signing of Instruction 1 to B.U. This might be p a r t i a l l y explained by a task d i f f e r e n c e . The Sender signed proportionally fewer incorporations i n the Instruction task to a l l Receivers except D.A. The proportion for D.A. may result from an order e f f e c t (not seen i n other measures), since t h i s was the f i r s t task to the f i r s t Receiver i n the study. The proportion of reduced forms i s shown i n Table 4. The sender signed very few of these, between zero and four to each Receiver i n each task. A s l i g h t task difference can be seen; three reduced forms were signed to each receiver except H.O., who Receiver four, i n Paraphrase 2. This i s the same l e v e l l i n g seen i n other measures. Receiver differences were not systematic. 43 Table 4. Proportion of Reduced Forms to Total Signs Used by Sender with Each Receiver i n Each Task. Task D.A. S.E. Receiver E.I. H.O. B.U. Instruction 1 — — 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 Tasks 0.024 0.016 0.040 0.033 0.033 Amount of inde x i c a l reference varied according to task, but not according to Receiver. This i s shown i n Table 5. Proportion of in d e x i c a l reference was f a i r l y high i n the Instructions, where the Sender explained the nature of the presentation and the roles that both he and the Receiver would play. Here the Sender used e x p l i c i t f i r s t Table 5. Proportion of Indexical References to Total Signs Used by Sender with Each Receiver 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 Tasks 0.077 0.101 0.095 0.080 0.077 0.086 44 and second person pronouns. Int e r e s t i n g l y , these pronouns can be incorporated i n verb signs, but i t appears that the Sender chose not to use t h i s device i n the Instructions i n the i n t e r e s t of c l a r i t y . These in d e x i c a l references were not necessary i n the Paraphrase, which was a third-person n a r r a t i v e . (However many other signs i n the Paraphrase were subjected to incorporation, e.g. STOP-CAR and TWO-WEEK.) Syntax The number of utterances signed i s displayed i n Table 6. Utterance counts are only p a r t i a l l y p a r a l l e l to the sign counts discussed e a r l i e r (see Table 1). For example, the same ranking i s seen i n task d i f f e r e n c e s : Instruction 1 has the fewest signs and utterances, Paraphrase 2 has the most. However, the difference between the two Paraphrase tasks i s greater i n the utterance count. This r e f l e c t s a complexity difference which w i l l be discussed l a t e r . Across tasks, counts show that the most utterances were signed to H.O., the fewest to E.I. This p a r a l l e l s the r e s u l t s on the sign measure (see Table 1). Otherwise, systematic Receiver differences cannot be seen. Table 6. Total Number of Utterances Signed by Sender to Each Receiver i n Each Task. Task D.A. S. Receiver E. E.I. H.O. B.U. X 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 Across Tasks 18 19 16 21 18 18.4 45 Table 7. Number of Propositions Per Utterance Signed by Sender to Each Receiver i n Each Task. Task D.A. Receiver S.E. E.I. H.O. B.U. 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 Tasks 2.3 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.2 Table 7 shows the number of propositions per utterance signed to each Receiver i n each task. These re s u l t s disconfirm the pre d i c t i o n that the number of propositions per utterance w i l l decrease from highest to lowest ranking Receiver. The Receiver ranking on th i s measure i s presented i n Figure 5. This figure shows that there i s no consistency i n the ranking across the three tasks. None of these rankings matches the rankings according to s o c i a l variables i n Figure 4. Figure 5. Ranking of Receivers, from high to low, on the basis of number of propositions per utterance i n each task. Instruction 1 H.O. E.I. S.E. B.U. D.A. Paraphrase 1 H.O. S.E. B.U. E.I. D.A. Paraphrase 2 D. A. S.E. E. I. B.U. H.O. Across Tasks H.O., S.E. E.I. D.A. B.U. 46 Three subjects (D.A., S.E. and B.U.) show a consistent task d i f f e r e n c e , with a very small increase i n the number of propositions per utterance i n each successive task, but the difference i s too small to i n t e r p r e t . The f a i l u r e to f i n d any systematic differences across Receivers or tasks leads to the question 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 vocal languages. Number of signs per utterance was not a useful measure of complexity i n t h i s study because i t i s linked with the propositions per utterance data just discussed. A more informative measure was number of signs per proposition. These data are supplied i n Table 8. Both Receiver and task differences can be seen. In each task, and across tasks, the greatest number of signs per propostion were signed to B.U., with D.A. close behind. If number of signs per proposition i s a true complexity measure i n ASL, as words per proposition or sentence i s considered to be i n spoken languages, we would predict t h i s r e s u l t for B.U. The only s o c i a l v ariable ranking i n which D.A. i s adjacent to B.U. i s the ranking according to occupation (Figure 4). The other three subjects are ranked v a r i a b l y on t h i s measure, except that E.I. i s ranked lowest i n two tasks ( I n s t r u c t i o n 1 and Paraphrase 2) and when the measure i s made across a l l three tasks. Table 8. Number of Signs Per Proposition Signed by Sender to Each Receiver i n Each Task. Task D.A. S.E. Receiver E.I. H.O. B.U. X 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 Tasks 4.1 3.7 3.6 3.8 4.6 4.0 47 Since E.I. ranks with D.A. on the occupation s c a l e , and above him i n terras of age and signing 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 age, occupation and signing p r o f i c i e n c y do not predict the ranking i n terms of number of signs per proposition, except possibly f o r B.U. It i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that 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 three lowest ranked Receivers are female. The actual number differences on which the Receivers were ranked on t h i s measure are quite small and probably not s i g n i f i c a n t . These r e s u l t s should be interpreted accordingly. Across Receivers, the Sender tended to decrease the number of signs per proposition i n each subsequent task. This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y noticeable i n Paraphrase 2, where t h i s number i s quite low f o r a l l Receivers. As i n other measures, t h i s i s a t t r i b u t e d to c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of narrative, p a r t i c u l a r l y when i t includes dialogue. The Sender repeated propositions, completely or i n part, to varying degrees i n the d i f f e r e n t task presentations. Repetition indicates a reduction i n complexity; i . e . number of unique propositions to t o t a l number of propositions y i e l d s a r a t i o analogous to the type:token r a t i o . This r a t i o i s presented i n Table 9. Table 9 c l e a r l y shows that, although there are not consistent Receiver differences from Table 9. Proportion of Unique to Total Propositions. Task Instruction 1 Paraphrase 1 Paraphrase 2 Across Tasks D.A. 0.60 0.86 0.87 0.83 Receiver S.E. E.I. 0.91 0.71 0.81 0.80 0.83 H.O. 0.57 B.U. 0.57 0.64 0.86 0.91 0.58 1.00 0.88 0.54 0.90 0.93 48 one i n d i v i d u a l task to another, across tasks the highest proportion of unique propositions was signed to B.U., the lowest to H.O. If Receivers are ordered according to across-task r a t i o , the r e s u l t i n g rank order exactly matches the rank order based on occupation status (see Figure 4). With the exception of H.O.'s r a t i o , which i s dramatically lower than the others, Receiver r a t i o s are r e l a t i v e l y consistent i n Paraphrase 2. This i s compatible with r e s u l t s based on other measures. Table 10 presents the r e p e t i t i o n measure i n a d i f f e r e n t way. In t h i s table we see a p a r t i a l explanation for the propositions per utterance r e s u l t s — p u r p o r t e d l y a complexity measure—discussed e a r l i e r . The large number of utterances, propositions, and signs per utterance addressed to H.O. apparently includes, and i s i n part accounted f o r by, a high degree of r e p e t i t i o n . Just as the Sender's signing to H.O. was very r e p e t i t i v e , h i s signing to B.U. was markedly nonrepetitive. Signing to the other three Receivers was quite s i m i l a r on t h i s measure. The reduction of complexity provided by r e p e t i t i o n i s i n the i n t e r e s t of c l a r i t y ; the Receiver has more chances to understand the message being signed. Table 10. Number of Repetitions per Utterance. Receiver Task D.A. S.E. E.I. H.O. B.U. 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 Across Tasks 0.39 0.53 0.44 1.14 0.17 49 Rate The Sender's rate of signing was computed as number of signs per second, including pause duration and excluding pause duration. (Total durations f o r signing and pauses are presented i n Appendix C). The signing rates f o r each Receiver i n each task are shown i n Tables and 12. Very l i t t l e d i fference can be seen i n the Sender's rate of signing to i n d i v i d u a l Receivers, with one exception. He signed at a fa s t e r rate i n a l l tasks to B.U. Table 11. Rate of Signing i n Number of Signs per Second (Including Pauses). Receiver Task 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 Table 12. Rate of Signing i n Pauses). Number of Signs Per Second (Not Including Receiver Task D.A. S.E. E.I. H.O. B.U. 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 50 According to Goldman-Eisler ( c i t e d i n B e l l u g i , 1972), v a r i a t i o n i n pause time rather than signs per second i s the true i n d i c a t o r of d i f f e r i n g rates of expression. This does not appear to be the case i n th i s study. A comparison of Tables 11 and 12 shows that the extent and d i r e c t i o n of rate differences across Receivers and tasks remain f a i r l y constant, regardless of whether pause duration i s included i n the c a l c u l a t i o n . A small difference can be seen when the signing i n the two paraphrase tasks are compared i n Table 11 and Table 12. The s l i g h t l y greater increase i n rate when pauses are not included i n the computation may indicate that a fas t e r rate of actual signing or increased pauses accompanied the dialogue or story climax i n the second part of the narr a t i v e . In general, the i n s t r u c t i o n s were signed at a fas t e r rate than the story. A slower signing rate may be yet another c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of an ASL narrative s t y l e . B e l l u g i (1972) reports the rate of signed conversation to be 2.1 signs per second. In t h i s study, the signing rate i n the Instruction task i s closer to, but s t i l l lower than t h i s f i g u r e . Thus signed i n s t r u c t i o n s are more l i k e signed conversation than i s signed narrative, but they are s t i l l d i f f e r e n t . The slower rate i n the Instructions 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 difference i n signing rate, presence of the video camera, or the Sender's desire to make the Instructions absolutely c l e a r to his Receivers. Head t i l t The Sender used more forward and backward than l e f t and right h e a d t i l t s i n a l l tasks signed to a l l Receivers. In the Instructions, he c o n s i s t e n t l y marked utterance boundaries with forward h e a d t i l t s . This may be r e f l e c t e d i n the r e l a t i v e l y high proportion of h e a d t i l t s shown i n the Instruction task i n Table 13. Because both forward and backward h e a d t i l t s are reportedly used to mark syntactic boundaries, they are combined i n t h i s table. The data i n Table 13 reinfo 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 , since the Sender averages about one h e a d t i l t per proposition. The smaller proportion of h e a d t i l t s shown i n Table 14 r e f l e c t s the d i f f e r e n t functions of side and forward-backward h e a d t i l t s . There 51 Table 13. Number of Forward and Backward Headtilts per Proposition. Task Receiver D.A. S.E. E.I. H.O. B.U. Instruction 1 Paraphrase 1 Paraphrase 2 1.4 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.5 0.9 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.9 0.5 1.0 0.8 Across Tasks 1.1 1.0 0.8 1.1 1.0 Table 14. Number of Lef t and Right Headtilts per Proposition. Task Receiver D.A. S.E. E.I. H.O. B.U. Instruction 1 Paraphrase 1 Paraphrase 2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.7 Across Tasks 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 was a s l i g h t l y higher proportion of h e a d t i l t s i n Paraphrase 1, perhaps due to the de s c r i p t i o n involved i n t e l l i n g the story. The Sender used no t i l t s to the ri g h t i n the Instruction task (see Appendix C). No systematic Receiver differences can be seen i n Table 13 or Table 14. Body movement Analysis of body movement included measures of shoulder r a i s e s , body turn, and changes i n body i n c l i n a t i o n . O v e r a l l , the Sender used a 52 greater number of these nonsign movements with H.O., e s p e c i a l l y shoulder r a i s e s . Interpretation of the use of these movements, however, requires that they be normalized i n terms of the number of utterances or propositions signed to each Receiver. For t h i s reason, the data i n Tables 15, 16 and 17 are presented as number of each movement per proposition. Table 15. Number of Shoulder Ra ises per Proposition. Receiver Task. 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 Across Tasks 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.4 Table 16. Number of Body Turns per Proposition. Receiver Task 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 Across Tasks 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 53 Table 17. Number of Changes i n Body I n c l i n a t i o n per Proposition. Receiver Task 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 Across Tasks 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 Tables 15, 16 and 17 show no systematic 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 according to Receiver v a r i a b l e s . A s l i g h t l y higher number of shoulder raises to H.O. i s consistent with hypotheses about body movement and r e f l e c t s the greater absolute number mentioned above. A few task differences can be seen i n these measures. The Sender used more shoulder raises i n Paraphrase 1 than i n the other two tasks. This may be related to the desc r i p t i v e content of the f i r s t part of the narrative, since shoulder raises are often used i n ASL to indicate quantitative notions such as the size of an object, person or event, or extent of a q u a l i t y . The story included concepts such as 'very b e a u t i f u l ' and ' l i t t l e house.' The o v e r a l l low rate of shoulder raises i n the Instruction task can be explained on these grounds (see Table 15). Body turns, l i k e shoulder r a i s e s , were very infrequent i n the Instruction task and most frequent i n Paraphrase 1 (see Table 16). Changes i n body i n c l i n a t i o n were consistent across Receivers i n Paraphrase 2 (see Table 17). The Sender seemed to be using a s t y l e of signing t y p i c a l of quoting d i r e c t dialogue. When he took the role of the f i r s t party, he turned to one side. When he responded i n the second r o l e , he changed his body o r i e n t a t i o n . This device i s s i m i l a r to "indexing," that i s , assigning a person or object a place i n space; 54 t h i s space i s then used to refer to the person or object i n subsequent references. Amplitude Amplitude was measured as signs executed beyond the normal signing space. In absolute terms, the greatest number of extended signs were signed to D.A. and H.O. Because of the large v a r i a t i o n i n number of signs and number of propositions across Receivers, this measure was analyzed as number of s p a t i a l extensions per proposition. The r e s u l t s are summarized i n Table 18. The table shows that a r e l a t i v e l y (as well as absolutely) greater number of signs were signed with greater amplitude to D.A. than to the other Receivers. On the other hand, signing to H.O. was s i m i l a r to signing to the other Receivers on t h i s measure. The i n t e r e s t i n g difference here i s one between tasks. Spatial extensions were very infrequent i n the Instructions but considerably more frequent i n the narrative, e s p e c i a l l y the f i r s t part. This i s probably related 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 n a r r a t i v e . Table 18. Number of Sp a t i a l Extensions per Propose L t i o n . Receiver Task 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 Across Tasks 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 55 Summary of Receiver-related Signing 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 modified his signing of each task to each Receiver. This modification was not as systematic on the basis of Receiver variables as hypothesized i n Chapter 2. Thus, these hypotheses are not supported i n t h e i r strong form. That i s , systematic differences i n the predicted d i r e c t i o n are not seen on any given measure i f a l l Receivers are considered i n d i v i d u a l l y and ranked according to age, occupation or signing p r o f i c i e n c y . Rank ordering of Receivers matched a predicted ordering (based on occupation) on only one measure; proportion of unique propositions. In spite of t h i s , some systematicity can be seen i n the Sender's modifications to d i f f e r e n t Receivers. The hypotheses c o r r e c t l y predicted a number of s p e c i f i c modifications i n the Sender's signing to H.O., the lowest ranked Receiver on the basis of age, occupation and signing p r o f i c i e n c y . The Sender signed more signs, propositions and utterances to H.O. than to any other Receiver. This i s accounted f o r , i n part, by a high degree of redundancy. The Sender repeated many propositions, so that the lowest proportion of unique propositions was signed to H.O. Although the Sender signed the greatest number of signs to H.O., t h i s also showed a high degree of redundancy. The Sender's lowest type:token r a t i o was measured i n his signing to her. He also used the r e l a t i v e l y l e a s t amount of incorporations i n his signing to H.O. A l l of these modifications worked to make the signed message simpler and c l e a r e r . It i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that they are v i r t u a l l y the same modifications as those made by adults speaking to young hearing c h i l d r e n (see references i n Snow & Ferguson, 1977). Modifications i n signing to H.O. were more dramatic and consistent than those addressed to any other Receiver. The hypotheses also predicted a c l u s t e r of modifications i n signing addressed to B.U., the Receiver ranked highest on a l l three s c a l e s . In signing to B.U., the Sender had a high type:token r a t i o and used the highest proportion of unique propositions. Results on these two measures show that there was less redundancy i n the messages signed to B.U. that those signed to any other Receiver. The Sender also used the most signs and propositions i n his signing to B.U. This should i n d i c a t e a greater degree of l i n g u i s t i c complexity. F i n a l l y , the Sender signed at a f a s t e r rate to B.U. than to the other 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 increased complexity. Signing to D.A. was characterized by an i n t e r e s t i n g mixture of ASL modifications. D.A. ranked highest on several measures and lowest on others. These r e s u l t s cannot be explained i n terms of the s o c i a l variables defined i n t h i s study. The lowest proportion of reduced forms and the highest proportion of s p a t i a l l y extended signs were signed to D.A. These were both predicted to be measures of s i m p l i c i t y or c l a r i t y . On the other hand, the Sender used his highest type:token r a t i o and a high number of signs per proposition i n signing to D.A. These measures both indicate a more complex l e v e l of signing. Modifications to the two remaining Receivers are even harder to characterize. E.I. received fewer signs and utterances than any other Receiver. The Sender also used a low type:token r a t i o i n signing to her. S.E. received the lowest proportion of reduced forms but was at neither extreme on most measures. On two complexity measures — type:token r a t i o and signs per proposition — male Receivers ranked high r e l a t i v e to female Receivers. Summary of Task-related Signing V a r i a t i o n This study was designed to focus on Receiver-related v a r i a t i o n , but some of the most i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t s are related to differences between tasks. The Instructions and the Paraphrase are c l e a r l y distinguished on a number of measures. Much of the observed task-related v a r i a t i o n i s predictable i n terms of the nature of each task. In Instruction 1, the Sender explains the program of events and what each p a r t i c i p a n t would do. The Paraphrase task was a story that involved d e s c r i p t i o n of characters, l o c a t i o n s , events and time, and ( i n the second part) dialogue. The Paraphrase task was characterized by a high type:token r a t i o and more propositions per utterance than the Instruction task. On the other hand, i t also showed a lower number of signs per proposition, e s p e c i a l l y i n the second part, which included the dialogue. Prosodic 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 p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g . Across Receivers, the Paraphrase tasks contained more s p a t i a l extensions (greater amplitude) and shoulder r a i s e s , e s p e c i a l l y i n Paraphrase 1, which involved more d e s c r i p t i o n . The narrative also contained more side h e a d t i l t s , again associated with d e s c r i p t i o n . It 57 was signed more slowly than the Instructions. This slower rate was p a r t i a l l y due to longer or more pauses, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n Paraphrase 2. A number of measures were so strongly influenced by the Paraphrase tasks that Receiver-related v a r i a t i o n l e v e l l e d out. This was p a r t i c u l a r l y true of Paraphrase 2. Measures i n t h i s group include type:token r a t i o (high as well as uniform), proportion of incorporations, reduced forms and unique propositions, and changes i n body i n c l i n a t i o n . The Instructions were b r i e f , with utterance boundaries cons i s t e n t l y marked by h e a d t i l t . This task allowed more Receiver-related v a r i a t i o n i n type:token r a t i o and tended to be less marked on the prosodic and p a r a l i n g u i s t i c measures. Instruction 1 was signed at a f a s t e r rate than the narrative, but s t i l l not as fast as i s reported for normal signed conversation. CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSIONS Description of style-switching i n ASL i s attainable v i a 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 studies of s t y l e -switching i n other languages. The information derived from these studies provides the data from which the rules of communication can be established. The current study has shown that i t i s possible to i s o l a t e and describe p a r t i c u l a r aspects of the ASL code that undergo change when the r e l a t i o n s h i p between part i c i p a n t s or the communicative goal i s a l t e r e d . Using t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n , conjecture about the rules of ASL 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 general becomes possible. The r e s u l t s of t h i s study, based on data provided by a single set of sender-receiver dyads can be used as an example of the precise information that i s a v a i l a b l e using such an approach. On the basis of a quantitative analysis of seven categories of performance parameters, i t was possible to examine the differences between two tasks. Results revealed a marked d i s t i n c t i o n between the Instructions and the Paraphrase tasks, thereby e s t a b l i s h i n g a p r o f i l e for an information-giving s t y l e and a s t o r y - t e l l i n g s t y l e . Although i t was previously mentioned that these differences i n s t y l e might r e f l e c t an informal versus formal d i s t i n c t i o n , i t i s possible to conclude only that the tasks were v i s i b l y d i f f e r e n t . Further research w i l l be necessary to confirm the r e a l i t y of the proposed s t y l e s of presentation and to open up the question 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 of s t o r y - t e l l i n g versus information-giving and formal versus informal c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Comparison of performance p r o f i l e s based on s e l f e d i t i n g procedures of the Sender, revealed two s t y l e s of signing d i s t i n c t from 58 59 a t h i r d , more neutral s t y l e . The f i r s t , observed i n the Sender's signing to the c h i l d , was marked by extent and redundancy of the message and greater reliance on parameters that augmented c l a r i t y . The second d i s t i n c t s t y l e was seen i n the Sender's performance to an adult who ranks higher than the Sender i n terms of age, occupation 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 s t y l e s of signing emerged from the analysis of the data i s not as remarkable as the opportunity to describe 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 i n ASL. This study has demonstrated the r e a l i t y of the performance categories analyzed and the extent of measurable v a r i a t i o n within these categories. Some of these categories are c l e a r l y more relevant to this type of study than others. Measures that are l e s s useful are those that showed very l i t t l e v a r i a t i o n across p a r t i c i p a n t s or tasks. Although i t was not possible i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n to tease out the influence that 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 on the Sender's performance, i t was c l e a r l y evident that s t y l e -switching did occur. That the content presented i n each case was v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l , and that the circumstances of presentation were i d e n t i c a l , leads to the conclusion that the sender was 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 . The clear e s t display of s e l f - e d i t i n g by the sender served to confirm the existence 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, and a d i s t i n c t narrative s t y l e . This confirmation adds further evidence to the claim that ASL p a r a l l e l s spoken languages of the world. Furthermore, 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 currently known about style-switching i n languages of the world. This i n v e s t i g a t i o n , then, has been able to f u r n i s h preliminary information about what changes occur i n ASL, how these changes are manifested and when these changes occur. Further research w i l l be required to determine whether these s t y l e s of signing are maintained given d i f f e r e n t tasks, d i f f e r e n t receivers and, above a l l , d i f f e r e n t p r i n c i p a l signers. Results obtained i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n must be interpreted with caution, as i t i s possible that the observed styles of signing are i d i o s y n c r a t i c . The c r u c i a l f a c t i s that the patterns of v a r i a t i o n were discernable. 60 APPENDIX A NOTATIONAL SYSTEM SIGN SIGN-SIGN 'meaning' SIGtP3IGN SIGN [VJ W-O-R-D SIGN + II ## Words i n c a p i t a l l e t t e r s indicate the English gloss for ASL signs. Two word glosses connected by hyphens are used when more than one English word i s required to translate a single sign e.g. WAKE-UP. Words within single quotation marks represent the meaning or referent of the signs: e.g., 'tree' indicates the referent tree, not the English word tree. Sign glosses joined by an arc refer to the use of two ASL signs to express a single l e x i c a l u n i t : e.g. FACE^NEW refers to 'stranger'. A sign that has undergone i n d e x i c a l change, as i n INFORM Fingerspelled words are represented i n c a p i t a l l e t t e r s with hyphens between l e t t e r s . A plus mark i s used to indicate r e p e t i t i o n of a sign, e.g. NIGHT ++ indicates the sign NIGHT was made three times. / The double bar indicates a b r i e f pause at the end of an utterance. During the pause, hands are held i n the same po s i t i o n as the l a s t sign. The double crossed bars indicate a pause of r e l a t i v e l y long duration. The hands return to rest p o s i t i o n . A l i n e under either the double bar or the double cross bars indicate that the configuration of the l a s t sign was held during the pause. 61 APPENDIX B PARAPHRASE TASK Explain to the other person what you are going to do, and what you want him/her to do. Then t e l l the story i n your own words. You should ask one or two questions about the story to encourage comment by the other person. A young woman dreamed one night that she was walking along a strange country road. It led her 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 to conceal her deli g h t , she knocked loudly on the door of the house, and f i n a l l y i t was opened by an old, old man with a long white beard. Just as she started to ta l k to him, she woke up. Every d e t a i l of the dream was so clear i n her memory that she thought about i t for days. Then, three nights i n a row, she had exactly the same dream again. She always woke up at the point when her conversation with the old man was about to begin. A few weeks l a t e r , the young woman was dri v i n g to Chilliwack to v i s i t a f r i e n d , when she suddenly pulled of f the road and stopped her car. There, on the ri g h t of the highway was the country road of her dreams! She got out of the car and started walking up the road. She was not surprised when she arrived at the top of the h i l l and saw the house, which was now so f a m i l i a r to her. She knocked on the door and the old man answered. " T e l l me," she began, " i s t h i s l i t t l e house for sale?" "Yes i t i s , " said the man "but I wouldn't advise you to buy i t . You see, th i s house i s hauntedl" "Haunted," said the woman, "by whom?" "By you," r e p l i e d the old man and he s o f t l y closed the door. Sample questions; 1. What did the young lady dream? 2. What happened when she found the house? 62 APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF UNINTERPRETED COUNTS OF PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS Table A: Total Number of Each Performance Parameter Used by Sender With Each Receiver i n Instruction 1 (Task 1) RECEIVER* PARAMETER D.A. S.E. E.I. H.O. B.U. Signs (tokens) 26 47 26 52 42 Unique signs (types) 25 38 15 27 34 Incorporations 2 2 1 1 1 Reduced forms — — 2 1 1 Indexical references 8 14 9 14 9 Utterances 4 5 2 2 4 Propositions 5 11 7 11 7 Repetitions of propositions ( p a r t i a l or complete) 2 1 3 4 1 Duration i n seconds (including pauses) 16.6 27.1 14.9 29.2 21.0 Duration of between-utterance 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 , r i g h t — — — — — Head t i l t s , l e f t 2 3 2 3 3 Shoulder raises — — 1 4 3 Body turns — 1 1 — — Changes i n body i n c l i n a t i o n 3 2 1 3 2 Extensions beyond canonical signing space — 2 — 2 — *Receivers are l i s t e d i n order of presentation 63 Table B: Total Number of Each Performance Parameter Used by Sender With Each Receiver i n Paraphrase 1 (Task 2) RECEIVER* PARAMETER D.A. S.E. E.I. H.O. B.U. Signs (tokens) 66 60 51 79 66 Unique signs (types) 52 44 42 55 56 Incorporations 5 6 3 4 6 Reduced forms 1 — — 3 2 Indexical references 1 — — Utterances 8 5 5 6 6 Propositions 14 14 11 19 14 Repetitions of propositions ( p a r t i a l 2 4 1 8 — or complete) Duration i n seconds (including pauses) 58.0 50.8 46.2 68.0 53.0 Duration of between-utterance pauses i n 5.9 2.2 2.3 7.1 5.7 seconds " Head t i l t s , backwards 13 11 7 10 6 Head t i l t s , forwards 9 2 6 8 8 Head t i l t s , r i g h t 1 3 1 4 2 Head t i l t s , l e f t 6 5 5 9 4 Shoulder raises 4 6 10 11 6 Body turns 9 5 5 5 6 Changes i n body i n c l i n a t i o n — 1 5 1 5 Extensions beyond canonical signing space 19 12 14 14 14 *Receivers are l i s t e d i n order of presentation 64 Table C: Total Number of Each Performance Parameter Used by Sender With Each Receiver i n Paraphrase 2 (Task 4) RECEIVER* PARAMETER D.A. S.E. E.I. H.O. B.U. Signs (tokens) 78 82 70 81 75 Unique signs (types) 64 68 59 65 60 Incorporations 6 6 5 10 4 Reduced forms 3 3 4 3 3 Indexical references 4 5 5 3 5 Utterances 6 9 9 13 8 Propositions 23 26 24 26 19 Repetitions of 12 propositions ( p a r t i a l 3 5 3 2 or complete) Duration i n seconds 47.5 (including pauses) 58.9 66.7 57.7 68.3 Duration of between-utterance pauses i n 2.1 11.3 10.0 11.9 4.7 seconds 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 , r i g h t — 1 1 2 1 Head t i l t s , l e f t 6 6 4 9 12 Shoulder raises 6 3 5 10 6 Body turns 6 4 4 8 3 Changes i n body 8 i n c l i n a t i o n 8 7 7 6 Extensions beyond 10 23 canonical signing space 19 13 4 *Receivers are l i s t e d i n order of presentation 65 BIBLIOGRAPHY Andersen, E.S., and Johnson, C.E. "Modifications i n the Speech of an Eight-Year-Old as a R e f l e c t i o n of Age of Listener." Stanford  Occasional 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 Sign Language." In Papers From the Twelfth Regional Meeting Chicago L i n g u i s t i c  Society. Edited by S.S. Mufwene, C.A. Walker and S.B. Steever. Chicago: Chicago L i n g u i s t i c Society. 1976. . "Regulators and Turn-Taking i n American Sign Language Discourse." In On the Other Hand. Edited by L. Friedman. 1977. Baker, C.L. and Padden, C.A. "Focusing on the Nonmanual Components of American Sign Language." In Understanding Language Through  Sign Language Research. Edited by P. S i p l e . 1978. Battison, R. "Phonological Deletion i n American Sign Language." Sign  Language Studies. 5:1-19. 1974. L e x i c a l Borrowing i n American Sign Language. S i l v e r Springs: Linstok Press. 1978. B a l l , R.T. S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s : Goals, Approaches and Problems. London: B.T. Batsford. 1976. B e l l u g i , U. "Studies i n Sign Language." In Psycholinguistics and  Total Communication: The State of the A r t . Edited by T.J. O'Rourke. Washington: American Annals of the Deaf. 1972. B e l l u g i , U. and Fischer, S. "A Comparison of Sign Language and Spoken Language." Cognition. 1:173-200. 1972. B e l l u g i , U. and Klima, E. "Two Faces of Sign: Iconic and Abstract." In Origins and Evolution of Language and Speech. Edited by S.R. Harnad, H.D. S t e k l i s and J . Lancaster. New York: New York Academy of Sciences. 1976. B e l l u g i , U. and Klima, E. "Aspects of Sign Language and It's Structure. In The Role of Speech i n Language. Edited by J.F. Kavanagh and J.E. Cutting. 1975. Berko Gleason, J . "Code Switching i n Children's Language." In Cognitive Development and the A c q u i s i t i o n of Language. Edited by T.E. Moore. New York: Academic Press. 1973. Bernstein, B. "Elaborated and Restricted Codes: Their S o c i a l Origins and Some Consequences." American Anthropologist 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 Culture and Society. Edited by D. Hymes. 1964b. "Soci a l Class, Language and S o c i a l i z a t i o n . " In Language and S o c i a l Context. Edited 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 Directions i n S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s . Edited 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 Structure: Code-Switching i n Norway." In Directions i n S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s . Edited by J . J . Gumperz and D. Hymes. 1972. Bode, L. "Communication of Agent, Object and Indirect Object i n Signed and Spoken Languages." Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s . 39:1151-1158. 1974. Bragg, B. "Ameslish - Our American Heritage: A Testimony." American  Annals of the Deaf. 118:672-674. 1973. Bright, W. V a r i a t i o n and Change i n Language. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 1976. Brown, P. and Fraser, C. "Speech as a Marker of Sit u a t i o n . " In S o c i a l  Markers i n Speech. Edited by K. Scherer and H. G i l e s . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1979. Brown, R. and Gilman, A. "The Pronouns of Power and S o l i d a r i t y . " In Style i n Language. Edited 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 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1977. Ci 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. Edited by I.M. Schlesinger and L. Namir. 1978. Ci 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 Children, Part 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 Children, Part I I . " American Annals of the  Deaf. 117:403-411. 1972. Cohen, E., Namir, L. and Schlesinger, I.M. A New Dictionary of Sign  Language. The Hague: Mouton. 1977. Covington, V. "Juncture i n American Sign Language." Sign Language Studies. 2:29-38. 1973. 67 . "Features of Stress i n American Sign Language." Sign Language Studies 2:39-50. 1973. Croneberg, C. "Sign Language D i a l e c t s . " In A Dictionary of American  Sign Language, pp. 313-319. Edited by W.C. Stokoe, D. Casterline and C. Croneberg. 1965. C r y s t a l , D. "Prosodic and P a r a l i n g u i s t i c Correlates of S o c i a l Categories." In S o c i a l Anthropology and Language. Edited by E. Ardener. London: Tavistock Publications. 1971. C r y s t a l , D. and Davy, D. Investigating English S t y l e . Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1969. Dittmar, N. S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s : A C r i t i c a l Survey of Theory and  A p p l i c a t i o n. London: Edward Arnold. 1976. Eastman, G. Sign Me A l i c e : A Play i n Sign Language. Washington D.C: Gallaudet College. 1974. Edge, V. and Hermann, L. "Verbs and the Determination of Subject." In On the Other Hand. Edited by L.A. Friedman. 1977. Edwards, A. Language i n Culture and Class. London: Heinemann Educational Books. 1976. E r t i n g , C. "Language Po l i c y and Deaf E t h n i c i t y i n the United States." Sign Language Studies 19:139-152. 1978. Ervin-Tripp, S. "An Analysis of the Interaction of Language, Topic and Listener." American Anthropologist 66,6:86-102. 1964. . " S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s . " In Advances i n Experimental S o c i a l Psychology, Volume 4. Edited by L. Berkowitz. New York: Academic Press. 1969. . "On S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c Rules: A l t e r n a t i o n and Co-Occurrence." In Directions i n S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s . Edited by J . J . Gumperz and D. Hymes. 1972. . "Is S y b i l There? The Structure of Some American English D i r e c t i v e s . " Language i n Society 5:25-66. 1976. Ferguson, C. "Baby Talk i n Six Languages." American Anthropologist 66,6:103-114. 1964a. . " D i g l o s s i a . " In Language i n Culture and Society. Edited by D. Hymes. 1964b. Fischer, S. "Two Processes of Reduplication i n American Sign Language." Foundations i n Language 9:469-480. 1973. 68 . "Influences on Word Order Change i n American Sign Language." In Word Order and Word Order Change. Edited by C.N. L i . Austin: University of Texas Press. 1975. Fischer, S. and Gough, B. "Verbs i n American Sign Language." Sign  Language Studies 18:17-48. 1978. Fishman, J.A. S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s : A Brief Introduction. Mass: Newbury House. 1972a. . "The Sociology of Language." In Language and S o c i a l Context. Edited by P.P. G i g l i o l i . 1972b. Frake, CO. "How to Ask for a Drink i n Subanan." American  Anthropologist 66,6:127-132. 1964. Friedman, L.A. "Space, Time and Person Reference i n American Sign Language." Language 51:940-961. 1975. . "The Manifestation of Subject, Object and Topic i n American Sign Language." In Subject and Topic. Edited by C. L i . New York: Academic Press. 1976. . ed. On the Other Hand: New Perspectives on American Sign Language. New York: Academic Press. 1977. G i g l i o l i , P.P. ed. Language and S o c i a l Context. Harmondsworth: Penguin Education. 1972. G i l e s , H. and Powesland, P. Speech Style and Soc i a l Evaluation. London: Academic Press. 1975. G i l e s , H., Scherer, K. and Taylor, D. "Speech Markers i n S o c i a l Interaction." In S o c i a l Markers i n Speech. Edited by K. Scherer and H. G i l e s . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1979. Goffman, E. "The Neglected S i t u a t i o n . " American Anthropologist 66,6:133-136. 1964. Goodenough, W.H. "Cu l t u r a l Anthropology and L i n g u i s t i c s . " In Language i n Culture and Society. Edited by D. Hymes. 1964. . "Rethinking 'Status' and 'Role'." In The Relevance of Models for S o c i a l Anthropology. Edited by M. Banton. New York: Frederick A. Praeger. 1965. Grosjean, F. and Lane, H. "Pauses and Syntax i n American Sign Language." Cognition 5:101-117. 1977. Gumperz, J . J . "Types of L i n g u i s t i c Communities." Anthropological  L i n g u i s t i c s 4,1:28-36. 1962. 69 . " L i n g u i s t i c and So c i a l Interaction i n Two Communities." American Anthropologist 66,6:137-153. 1964. . " 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 Laboratory. A p r i l 1970. . "The Speech Community." In Language i n S o c i a l Groups. Edited by J . J . Gumperz. 1971. . ed. Language i n S o c i a l Groups. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 1971. Gumperz, J . J . and Hymes, D. eds. Directions i n S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s : The Ethnography of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. 1972. Hoemann, H.W. Communicating with Deaf People: A Resource Manual for  Teachers and Students of American Sign Language. Baltimore: University Park Press. 1978. Hoemann, H.W. and Tweney, R.D. "Is the Sign Language of the Deaf An Adequate Communicative Channel?" American  Psychological Association Proceedings 81:801-802. 1973. Hymes, D. " L i n g u i s t i c Aspects of Cross-Cultural Personality." In Studying Personality C r o s s - C u l t u r a l l y . Edited by B. Kaplan. New York: Harper and Row. 1961. . "The Ethnography of Speaking." In Anthropology and Human Behavior. Edited by T. Gladwin and W.C. Sturtevart. Washington, D.C: Anthropological Society of Washington, 1962. . "Introduction: Toward Ethnographies of Communication." American Anthropologist 66,6. 1964a. . ed. Language i n Culture and Society. New York: Harper and Row. 1964b. . "Models of the Interaction of Language and S o c i a l Setting." Journal of S o c i a l Issues 23,2:8-28. 1967. . On Communicative Competence. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 1971. (Reprinted i n abridged form i n Pride and Holmes, 1972). • Models of the Interaction of Language and S o c i a l L i f e . " In Directions i n S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s : The Ethnography of  Communication. Edited by J . J . Gumperz and D. Hymes. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc. 1972. • Foundations i n S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s : An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 1974. 70 Ingram, R. "Theme, Rheme, Topic and Comment i n the Syntax of American Sign Language." Sign Language Studies 20:193-218. 1978. Joos, M. The Five Clocks. Indiana: Indiana University Press. 1967. Jordon, I.K. and Battison, R. "A R e f e r e n t i a l Communication Experiment with Foreign Sign Language." Sign Language Studies 8:69-101. 1976. Kavanagh, J.F. and Cutting, J.E. eds. The Role of Speech i n Language. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press. 1975. Kegl, J.A. and Wilbur, R.B. "When Does Structure Stop and Style Begin?" In Papers From the Twelfth Regional Meeting Chicago  L i n g u i s t i c Society, pp. 376-396. Edited by S.S. Mufwene, C.A. Walker and S.B. Steever. Chicago: Chicago L i n g u i s t i c Society. 1976. Klima, E. "Sound and It's Absence i n the L i n g u i s t i c Symbol." In The Role of Speech i n Language. Edited by J . Kavanagh and J . Cutting. 1975. Klima, E. and B e l l u g i , U. The Signs of Language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1979. Labov, W. "Phonological Correlates of S o c i a l S t r a t i f i c a t i o n . " American Anthropologist 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 English i n New York C i t y . Washington: Centre For Applied L i n g u i s t i c s . 1966. . "The Study of Language i n It's S o c i a l Context." Studium Generale 23:30-87. 1970. Lambert, W. "A S o c i a l Psychology of Bilingualism." Journal of S o c i a l  Issues 23:91-109. 1967. Laver, 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 So c i a l Markers i n Speech. Edited by K. Scherer and H. G i l e s . 1979. Leduinka, J . "Race of Interviewer and the Language Elaboration of Black Interviewees." Journal of S o c i a l Issues 27:185-197. 1971. L i d d e l l , S.K. "Nonmanual Signals and Relative Clauses i n American Sign Language." In Understanding Language Through Sign Language  Research. Edited by P. S i p l e . 1978. Long, J.S. The Sign Language: A Manual of Signs. Washington, D.C: Gallaudet College Press. 1918. 71 Lunde, A. "The Sociology of the Deaf." Quoted i n W. Stokoe, Sign  Language Structure, pp. 16-24. 1978. Lyons, J . Semiotics, Volume 2. London: Cambridge University Press. 1977. Mandel, M. "Iconic Devices i n American Sign Language." In On the Other Hand. Edited by L.A. Friedman. 1977. Markowicz, H. "Some S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c Considerations of American Sign Language." Sign Language Studies 1:15-41. 1972. Martin, S.E. "Speech Levels i n Japan and Korea." In Language i n  Culture and Society. Edited by D. Hymes. 1964b. Mayberry, R. "French Canadian Sign Language: A Study of Inter-Sign Language Comprehension." In Understanding Language Through  Sign Language Research. Edited 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 Psycholinguistics and Total Communication. Edited by T. J . O'Rourke. Washington: American Annals of the Deaf. 1972. Namir, L. and Schlesinger, I.M. "The Grammar of Sign Language." In Sign Language of the Deaf. Edited by I.M. Schlesinger and L. Namir. 1978. O'Rourke, T.J. ed. Psycholinguistics and Total Communication: The  State of the Art. Washington D.C: American Annals of the Deaf. 1972. Pride, J . and Holmes, J . eds. S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s : Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 1972. Scherer, K. and G i l e s , H. eds. Soci a l Markers i n Speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1979. Schlesinger, H.S. and Meadow, K. Deafness and Mental Health: A  Developmental Approach. San Francisco: Langley Porter I n s t i t u t e . 1971. Schlesinger, H.S. and Meadow, K. Sound and Sign: Childhood Deafness  and Mental Health. Berkely: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press. 1972. Schlesinger, H.S. and Namir, L. eds. Sign Language of the Deaf:  Psychological, L i n g u i s t i c and S o c i o l o g i c a l Perspectives. New York: Academic Press. 1978. Si p l e , P. ed. Understanding Language Through Sign Language Research. New York: Academic Press. 1978. 72 Slobin, D.I. "On the Nature of Talk to Children." In Foundations of  Language Development. Edited by E.H. Lenneberg and E. Lenneberg. New York: Academic Press. 1975. Snow, C.E. and Ferguson, C. eds. Talking to Children: Language Input  and A c q u i s i t i o n . Cambridge New York: Cambridge University Press. 1977. Stokoe, W. J r . Sign Language Structure. Studies i n L i n g u i s t i c s Occasional Papers 8. Buffalo: University of Buffalo Press. 1960. . "Sign Language D i g l o s s i a . " Studies i n L i n g u i s t i c s . 21:27-40. 1970. . Semiotics and Human Sign Language. New York: Humanities. 1972. . " C l a s s i f i c t i o n and Description of Sign Languages." In Current Trends i n L i n g u i s t i c s , V o l . 12 :345-371. The Hague: Mouton. 1974. . Sign Language Structure. S i l v e r Springs, Maryland: Linstok Press. 1978. Stokoe, W. J r . , C a s t e r l i n e , D. and Croneberg, C. A Dictionary of American Sign Language. Washington: Gallaudet College. 1965. (Revised, S i l v e r Springs: Linstok Press. 1976.) Tervoort, B.T. "You Me Downtown M-O-V-I-E Fun?" Lingua 21:455-456. 1968. T r u d g i l l , P. S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s : An Introduction. England: Penguin Books. 1974. Tweney, R.D. And Hoemann, H.W. "Translation and Sign Languages." In Translation. Edited by R.W. B r i s l i n . New York: Gardner Press. 1976. Wilbur, R.B. "The L i n g u i s t i c s of Manual Language and Manual Systems." In Communication Assessment and Intervention Strategies. Edited by L.L. Lloyd. Baltimore: University Park Press. 1976. . American Sign Language and Sign Systems. Baltimore: University Park Press. 1979. Woodward, J.C. J r . "Implications f o r S o c i o l i n g u i s t i c Research Among the Deaf." Sign Language Studies 1:1-17. 1972. . "Some C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Pidgin Sign English." Sign Language Studies 3:39-46. 1973a. 73 . "Some Observations 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 American Sign Language." Kansas Journal of Sociology. 9.2:191-200. 1973b. . "Interrule Implication i n American Sign Language." Sign Language Studies 3:47-56. 1973c. . "A Report on Montana-Washington Implicational Research." Sign Language Studies 4:77-101. 1974. Woodward, J.C. J r . , E r t i n g , C. and O l i v e r , S. "Facing and Hand(l)ing V a r i a t i o n i n American Sign Language." Sign Language Studies 10:43-51. 1976. 

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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095320/manifest

Comment

Related Items