Constructed Action in an Unfamiliar Sign Language Register

Transcription

1 Constructed Action in an Unfamiliar Sign Language Register Silke Matthes University of Hamburg

2 Introduction Unfamiliar Sign Language Register? Academic context: MSc dissertations (CDS, Bristol) Overview: Sociocultural context Conditions of language production Language device: Constructed Action (CA) Examples of CA in a MSc Dissertation

3 Sociocultural Context: Orality & Literacy Literacy: Societal life is determined by the use of writing Orality: Cultures without any writing system The (non-) existence of writing affects cognitive processes as well as the modes of expression used. Oral cultures: Knowledge is tied to the person Communication is restricted to face-to-face contact Different techniques for passing on knowledge are used... (Günther/Ludwig 1994; Ong 1985)

4 Sign Language Communities No generally accepted writing system Characteristics typical for oral cultures (e.g. Hansen 2005) Cultural minority in a strongly literal (hearing) majority society Making use of the majority s writing system Frequently switching between the two languages (mostly predetermined)

5 Sign Languages & Academia Increasing possibilities for Deaf students to enter universities Sign language is more commonly used But yet... Strongly literal context: Major influence of written language can be expected Written language is predominant (receptive and productive) Limited possibilities to develop an adequate register

6 Conditions of Language Production: Medium & Conception of Discourse Medium Conception oral literate spoken private conversation religious sermon written newspaper interview scientific article (Koch/Oesterreicher 1990; Oesterreicher 1997)

7 Conception: Communicative Conditions Oral: private setting familiarity & emotional involvement contextually embedded face-to-face situation dialogue spontaneous Communicative immediacy Literate: public setting formality & emotional detachment contextually dissociated physically distant monologue reflected Communicative distance (Koch/Oesterreicher 1990; Oesterreicher 1997)

8 Academic Context: Language of Distance Different conditions result in different communicative strategies. Distance communication is marked by: High degree of discourse planning High information density High integration and complexity of linguistic units Linguistic devices to be used for various strategies are required on all levels (lexical-semantic, syntactic, textual, and pragmatic). (Koch/Oesterreicher 1990)

9 Immediacy & Distance in Sign Languages Medium Conception immediate distant spoken? written??

10 MSc Dissertations Informants view (interviews): Filming Continuous signing needed Repetition required due to mistakes Planning and notes in English MSc Dissertation, CDS (Bristol) Language English structure Register unnatural for SL Not my BSL MSc Dissertation, CDS (Bristol)

11 Constructed Action (CA) The signer uses his/her own body to depict an event or action of an entity: The signer 'becomes' the referent. One-to-one correspondence between (parts of) the body and the intended referent Alternation between different discourse elements (often rapidly switching) Pure CA or parallelisation of CA with lexemes or classifier constructions (Fischer 2006). Markers: eye gaze, body shift, facial expressions,...

12 CA in Different Registers Mainly perceived as an element of narrative discourse: High potential to enact events and emotions CA in an ASL lecture: Involve the audience, make it interesting (Roy 1989, Winston 1992) Independent of register CA in formal as well as non-formal registers (Quinto-Pozos et al. 2006) CA in explanations of meaning (definitions) (Fischer/Kollien 2010)

13 CA as a Functional Discourse Element Signed modality allows for simultaneous conveyance of complementary information Very precise characteristics of a referent can be expressed Facilitates comprehension and recognition for recipients Assumptions: Functional, possibly obligatory, element of all signed discourse Can be expected to occur across all registers Differences in realisation depending on registers (Fischer/Kollien 2006, Quinto-Pozos 2007)

14 CA in a MSc Dissertation MSc Dissertation: 13min analysed (total 2h 17min) 94 occurrences of CA CA+Lex. CA CD CA+CL Private Conversation: Same informant in a private setting Topic: Investigation in family history 3min analysed (total 11min) 50 occurrences of CA CA+Lex. CA+CL CD CA

15 Example from MSc Dissertation: Markers: eye gaze, body movement, facial expressions Short duration of depiction CA + lexical sign here: no mouthing CHILDREN CHILDREN CA M18 / LEARN CA / LEARN

16 Example from Private Conversation: Markers: eye gaze, facial expressions More emphatic depiction Pure CA CA 67 CA: look at paper

17 Parallelisation M24a CA / WAIT++ CA / WAIT M24b CA / CL CA / CL Mostly short duration of depiction CA + lexical sign or CL Mouthing CA / SPEAK (babble)

18 Pure CA Hands are part of the construction (Sequence: different referents are present in discourse) M34a CA / OBSERVE+ M34b CA / SIGN+ M35 CA CA / OBSERVE / SIGN (child + adult) CA: look at hands (child)

19 Occurrences of CA MSc dissertation: No strongly emphatic depiction Subtle presence of CA in the discourse Mostly parallelised, presenting additional information Private conversation: Little emphatic depiction More distinct presence in the discourse Higher amount of CA without parallisation

20 Possible Functions of CA Referents are made present in the discourse (e.g. not lexically specified / additional entities) High information density: additional information is conveyed simultaneously Efficient conveyance of meanings that can not easily be expressed lexically

21 Conclusion Oral minority in a strongly literal society Academia: Conceptual shift to a language use of high distance CA as a language device used in this formal setting Written English used for planning Unfamiliar, underdeveloped register Technical realisation: Development of tools for SL, e.g. Dicta-Sign project Edit (

22 References Fischer, Renate /Kollien, Simon (2006). Constructed action in DGS: Roses Aktions=Fragmente (Teil I). Das Zeichen 72, pp Fischer, Renate /Kollien, Simon (2010). Gibt es Constructed Action in Deutscher Gebärdensprache und in Deutsch (in der Textsorte Bedeutungserklärung)? Das Zeichen 86, pp Günther, Hartmut /Ludwig, Otto (Eds.) (1994). Schrift und Schriftlichkeit: ein interdiszipinäres Handbuch internationaler Forschung. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, Vol Berlin: De Gruyter. Hansen, Martje (2005). Verfahren der Markierung semantischer Rollen am Erstaktanten in der Deutschen Gebärdensprache. Doctoral diss., University of Hamburg. Koch, Peter / Oesterreicher, Wulf (1990). Gesprochene Sprache in der Romania: Französisch, Italienisch, Spanisch. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Liddell, Scott (2003). Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Metzger, Melanie (1995). Constructed action and constructed dialogue in American Sign Language. In Lucas, Ceil (Ed.): Sociolinguistics in Deaf communities, pp Washington D.C.: Gallaudet University Press. Oesterreicher, Wulf (1997). Types of Orality in Text. In Bakker, Egbert / Kahane, Ahuvia (Eds.): Written Voices, Spoken Signs, pp Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Ong, Walter J. (1985). Orality and Literacy. The Technologizing of the Word. New York: Methuen & Co. Quinto-Pozos, David / Mehta, Sarika / Reynolds, Wanette (2006): The effects of register on the production of an ASL text. Conference poster. Theoretical Issues in Sign Langage Research 9. Florianópolis, Brasil. Quinto-Pozos, David (2007). Why Does Constructed Action Seem Obligatory? An Analysis of Classifiers and the Lack of Articulator-Referent Correspondence. Sign Language Studies 7(4), pp Roy, Cynthia. B. (1989). Features of Discourse in an American Sign Language Lecture. In Lucas, Ceil (Ed.): The Sociolinguistics of the Deaf Community, pp San Diego, California: Academic Press.

23 Acknowledgements CDS (Bristol), esp. Deaf informants and interpreters My supervisors Prof. Renate Fischer & Simon Kollien The workshop organisers and interpreters Thank you for your attention Contact