Sociolinguistic Variation in American Sign Language

Chapter 5

112 1. We are aware, of course, that a variety of signs that are unrelated phonologically to the three variants considered here may also be glossed as deaf (e.g., the form that consists of an A handshape opening to a 5 handshape at the ear or the form often seen in formal situations: index finger moving from the ear to neutral space where both handshapes are B handshapes, palms down, contacting each other on the side of the index fingers). However, these signs are distinct in meaning from the three variants we are examining. Our focus is on different ways of signing the same thing. Although our three variants differ phonologically , they are identical in meaning. Chapter 5 Phonological Variation 2: Variation in Location In this chapter we turn our attention to variation in the location of signs and examine two additional variables: the sign deaf and a class of signs represented by the verb know. THE DEAF VARIABLE As we explained in chapter 2, deaf is representative of signs produced on a vertical plane on the face and that move from the chin to the ear. Deaf can be produced by moving the forefinger from ear to chin, from chin to ear, or by contacting the lower cheek.1 deaf, which consists of a hold, a movement, and a hold, has a 1 handshape, and the palm is generally oriented inward. In citation form, the sign begins just below the ear and ends near the corner of the mouth. It thus has two locations. A second variant begins at the corner of the mouth and moves upward to the ear. A third variant simply contacts the lower cheek. Figure 5.1 illustrates the three variants. The ear-to-chin version of the sign is the citation form. The chin-toear version shows the process of metathesis, whereby the locations of the 2714 GUP SVA Chapter 05 6/14/01 9:20 AM Page 112 ear-to-chin Figure 5.1. Three variants of deaf contact cheek + culture chin-to-ear 2714 GUP SVA Chapter 05 6/14/01 9:20 AM Page 113 114 : p h o n o l o g i c a l v a r i a t i o n 2 two hold segments are inverted. The contact-cheek version consists of a hold (H). The issue is what promotes the production of a particular variant . The ear-to-chin variant and the chin-to-ear variant each have two locations and, because what varies is indeed the location, it is logical to suppose that something in the environment having to do with location constrains signers’ choices between these two hold-movement-hold (HMH) variants. Indeed, Liddell and Johnson, in their discussion of metathesis, argued that the choice between the ear-to-chin and chin-toear variants of deaf involves a purely phonological process, which is conditioned by the location of the preceding sign: A number of signs exchange the initial sequence of segments with a sequence of final segments in certain contexts that appear to be purely phonological. The sign deaf is typical of such metathesizing signs. [The ear-to-chin] form of the sign typically occurs immediately following signs produced in higher facial areas. . . . However, if deaf is immediately preceded by a sign in the lower facial regions (and perhaps other lower areas), the initial two segments are exchanged with the final two segments. (1989, 244–45) Here we use multivariate analysis to test the claim that variation in the form of deaf is constrained by “purely phonological” factors. Data consist of all tokens of deaf in the interviews and conversations, a total of 1,618 tokens. Coding: DEAF As with the 1 handshape variable, tokens were coded to test the possible effects of a broad range of sociodemographic and linguistic factors. Sociodemographic factors included the same ones coded for the 1 handshape variable: region, age, gender, ethnicity, social class, and language background. With respect to the linguistic factors, our coding scheme was designed to test the effect of grammatical function, which Lucas’s (1995) pilot study found to be the first-order linguistic constraint on variation in the form of deaf. In addition, as we have noted, we also wished to test previous claims about the effects of the location of the surrounding phonological environment. Finally, because sociolinguistic research has shown that highly involved narratives of personal experience...