Author:

Abstract:

Sparkling or still? Flemish native and non-native signers from 3 generations and the productive lexicon. A number of sign language linguists discern two different manifestations of sign language structure and/or use, i.e., a form which makes maximal use of the possibilities offered by the visual-gestural modality (e.g. iconicity, use of space, simultaneity) and a form more resembling oral language non-iconic sequential organisation. Examples are Cuxac (1996, 2000)’s “dire en montrant” versus “dire sans montrer”; Cogill-Koez (2000a and 2000b)’s “systems of schematic visual representation” versus “the linguistic mode” and Vermeerbergen (2006)’s “de l’eau pétillante” (sparkling water) versus “de l’eau plate” (still water). Concomitant with these two manifestations is the idea that “de l’eau plate” makes more use of the established lexicon, whereas “de l’eau pétillante” makes more use of what can be called productive lexicon. In the Flemish Deaf community it is generally assumed that “better” signers use more resources that reflect “de l’eau pétillante” and “weaker” signers more “de l’eau plate”. Moreover, due to societal developments in Flanders (mainly an overwhelming majority of mainstreaming among the younger deaf generation) it is generally expected that the amount of “productive lexicon” is diminishing in the sign language use of young deaf people. Hypotheses In this paper we wanted to investigate two hypotheses: 1. Older generations of deaf VGT signers use relatively more resources from the productive lexicon and younger generations rely more on the established lexicon. 2. Native signers (since they are supposedly better signers) use relatively more resources from the productive lexicon and non-native signers rely more on the established lexicon. Methodology The selection of data can have a major impact on research results (Van Herreweghe & Vermeerbergen 2012). Because we wanted to make sure that the participants would have ample opportunity to “dire en montrant” we made use of a picture story retelling of The Horse Story (Hickmann 2003). For the analysis, we decided to work with the following categories: lexical signs, depicting signs containing entity and SASS-handshapes, handling (depicting) signs, constructed action and gesture (based on Cormier et al., under review, Johnston & Schembri 2007, Ferrara 2012). We then calculated their percentages in each of the stories. Participants In Flanders a new corpus project has been started up in 2012. The aim is to collect data from 120 participants in different age groups from all over Flanders. Since it is not possible to analyse the data from all of these participants yet, we have selected a subset of participants for this study belonging to three generations in the following age groups: +75, 40-50, 17-25. Stories of 12 participants were analysed, i.e., within each generation 2 native signers and 2 non-native signers. Results Results show that there are many interpersonal differences. However, there are also indications that age and nativeness are of importance and moreover, that they are interconnected. For example, the middle group (i.e., signers aged 40-50) suggests that native signers rely more on the established lexicon than non-native signers (contrary to what is assumed in the Flemish Deaf community, but in line with previous research by Heyerick (2006)), but this does not seem to be the case for younger signers. Clearly these results need to be corroborated in follow-up research using a larger corpus. An interesting spin-off of the research is that it has given the researchers ample opportunity to think about how to deal with “de l’eau pétillante” in transcription and annotation of sign language corpus data (cf. Sallandre & Garcia, in press). Annotating the data used for this study was not always a straightforward activity. Some of the difficulties we encountered will be discussed in our talk. These include: (1) identifying a specific sign as established rather than as productive, (2) applying the category of constructed action and (3) the identification of role taking (see Ferrara, 2012 for a comparable discussion of “issues in annotation” of Auslan data). References Cogill-Koez, D. (2000a). Signed language classifier predicates. Sign language and linguistics 3 (2), 153-207. Cogill-Koez, D. (2000b). A model of signed language 'classifier predicates' as templated visual representation. Sign language and linguistics 3 (2), 209-236. Cormier, K., S. Smith & Z. Sevcikova (under review). Predicate structures, gesture and simultaneity in the representation of action in British Sign Language: Evidence from deaf children and adults. Accessed online at http://www.academia.edu/1519872/. Cuxac, C. (1996). Fonctions et structures de l’iconicité des langues des signes, unpublished thèse d’état, Paris V. Cuxac, C. (2000). La Langue des Signes Française. Les voies de l’iconicité. Faits de langues, no 15-16. Paris: Ophrys. Ferrara, L. (2012) A grammar of depiction: Exploring gesture and language in Australian Sign Language (Auslan). PhD dissertation, Macquarie University, Sydney. Accessed online at http://www.academia.edu/1830983/. Heyerick, I. (2006). Twee stijlen in de Vlaamse Gebarentaal? Een literatuurstudie en case study naar de l’eau plate en l’eau pétillante in Vlaamse Gebarentaal. Thesis sign language interpreter training programme, Vormingsleergang voor Sociaal en Pedagogisch Werk, Gent – St.Amandsberg. Hickmann, M. (2003). Children’s discourse: Person, space and time across languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Johnston, T. & A. Schembri (2007). Australian Sign Language. An introduction to sign language linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sallandre, M-A & B. Garcia (in press). Epistemological issues in the semiological model for the annotation of sign languages, In L. Meurant, A. Sinte, M. Van Herreweghe & M. Vermeerbergen (eds), Sign language research, uses and practices. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton / Ishara Press. Van Herreweghe, M. & M. Vermeerbergen (2008). Referent tracking in two unrelated sign languages and in home sign systems, Paper presented at the 30. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft, in the Colloquium Gestures: A comparison of signed and spoken languages, Bamberg, 27 - 29 February 2008. Van Herreweghe, M. & M. Vermeerbergen (2012). Data Collection. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach, & B. Woll (eds), Sign language. An international handbook. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, 1023-1045. Vermeerbergen, M. (2006) Past and current trends in sign language research. Language and communication 26 (2),168-192