Constructed Action in an Unfamiliar Sign Language Register

Constructed Action
in an
Unfamiliar Sign Language Register
Silke Matthes
University of Hamburg
silke.matthes@sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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, ...

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)

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)

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

Example from MSc Dissertation:
• Markers: eye gaze, body movement, facial expressions
• Short duration of depiction
• CA + lexical sign
• here: no mouthing
referentiellen Verortung im Gebärdenraum und unterscheidet sich dam
Blickverhalten während einer CA. Die unterschiedliche Funktion des B
haltens wird im folgenden Beispiel deutlich:
Beispiel 1 (MSc-Arbeit):
Glosse: CHILDREN LEARN WHAT ENGLISH
CA:
M18: expectant, happy
Blick: unten oben rechts (Kamera) (Kamera)
CHILDREN
CHILDREN
CA
M18
/ LEARN
CA / LEARN
Während der Gebärde CHILDREN ist der Blick nach unten gerichtet u

Example from Private Conversation:
wie sie das Dokument in ihren Händen zunächst betrachtet und plötz
entdeckt. Ein solches „Halten“ der CA ist in der MSc-Arbeit nicht zu f
• Markers: eye gaze, facial expressions
• More emphatic depiction
Beispiel 4 (Privatgespräch):
• Pure CA
CA
P34: (look at paper) be struck/ amazed
P34 CA 67
CA: look at paper

Parallelisation
M24a CA / WAIT++
CA / WAIT
M24b CA / CL
CA / CL
wird hier die Mutter, die mit ihrem Kind kommuniziert. In M24 wird
• Mostly short duration of depiction
llelisierter CA gezeigt, wie sie erwartungsvoll abwartet, bis ein Blickdem
Kind entstanden ist. Diese CA über die beiden manuellen
• CA + lexical sign or CL
en WAIT++ (mit wiederholter Ausführung des Lexems zur Anzeige
• Mouthing
dauerns) und CL:eye contact hinweg wird markiert durch einen
CA / SPEAK (babble)

Beispiel 7 (MSc-Arbeit) 68 :
Pure CA
WHEN OBSERVE+ SIGN+ [CA] SOM
M34: observe adult signing M35: reflect on own signing
• Hands are part of the construction
[CA] NEVER USE OFF++
M36: realise some handshape don’t fit
• (Sequence: different referents are present in discourse)
M34a CA / OBSERVE+ M34b CA / SIGN+ M35 CA SO
CA / OBSERVE / SIGN
(child + adult)
CA: look at hands
(child)

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

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

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
(www.dictasign.eu)

References
Fischer, Renate /Kollien, Simon (2006). Constructed action in DGS: Roses Aktions=Fragmente (Teil I). Das Zeichen 72, pp. 96-106.
Fischer, Renate /Kollien, Simon (2010). Gibt es Constructed Action in Deutscher Gebärdensprache und in Deutsch (in der Textsorte
Bedeutungserklärung)? Das Zeichen 86, pp.502-510.
Günther, Hartmut /Ludwig, Otto (Eds.) (1994). Schrift und Schriftlichkeit: ein interdiszipinäres Handbuch internationaler Forschung.
Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, Vol. 10.1. 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. 255-271. 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.190-214.
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. 458-506.
Roy, Cynthia. B. (1989). Features of Discourse in an American Sign Language Lecture. In Lucas, Ceil (Ed.): The Sociolinguistics of the Deaf
Community, pp. 231-251. San Diego, California: Academic Press.

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
silke.matthes@sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de