Chapter 6
DISCUSSIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND CONCLUSION
6.1 The Hypotheses and Research Questions
Section 6.1 discusses the evidence in favor of each of the hypotheses,
and discusses the research questions presented in the first chapter.
6.1.1 The First Two Hypotheses: BC vs. Signing Ability
The first two hypotheses are that BC occurs, and that people with
different signing abilities will exhibit different BC rates. Table 6.1
contains a breakdown of the mean and standard deviation for the
rate of BC used by each signing level between and within scenarios,
as well as the t- values obtained by comparing the between-scenario
BC rate with the within- scenario BC rate for each signing level.
T-tests are used to test the probability that the actual means of
two data sets are the same, based on representative samples of the
data. In this table, and in subsequent tables, NS represents non-
signers, and 1, 2, and 3 represent beginning, intermediate, and
advanced sign students, respectively. Two ANOVA tests were
performed comparing the standard deviation of the BC rate across
sign skill levels; one test was done comparing the within scenarios
BC rate, and the other was for the between scenarios BC rate. These
tests showed that we can reject at the alpha = .01 level (p < .0001
within scenarios, p < .0001 between scenarios) the null hypothesis
that the different levels exhibited the same behavior. Thus, it
is evident that BC does occur.
Table 6.1. BC rate by signing levels
between within
scenarios scenarios
signing level X' SD X' SD
___________________________________________________
non-signers 3.33 7.26 3.08* 4.43*
beginners 8.70 13.15 8.20 8.13
intermediates 28.67 49.65 38.33 44.76
advanced signers 97.33 27.04 20.67 5.50
*Note: This value was changed post-publication to correct a mathematical
error.
The relationship between BC and signing ability proved
to be more complex than hypothesized. Figure 6.1 shows that the
relationship is an inverted-U for the rates during the performance
of the scenarios, but it is linear for the discussions between the
scenarios.
{figure 6.1 omitted from e-version}
The non-signers, beginners, and intermediate
signers had the same BC rate regardless of whether they
were performing a scenario or conversing afterwards. A two tailed
t-test was performed for each level comparing the within-scenario
BC rate and the between scenario rate. Each of the three t-tests
showed that the two sample rates reflected the same behavior (p >
.5). In contrast to this, the advanced signers were the group which
showed the greatest difference. A similar t-test on this group
indicated less than a .01 probability that the rates were the same.
These advanced signers appear to have greater control over their
use of BC. As one subject stated (unsolicited) during the
debriefing, "I can turn it [i.e., the use of BC] on and off."
Several of the subjects mentioned that they acquired this ability
with effort. During the debriefing, they volunteered the
information that they tried to stop using BC because their use of
it irritated their friends and family. There are at least two
reasons these signers may have chosen to behave differently between
scenarios than they did during the scenarios. The most likely
cause is that the subjects were on their `best behavior' during the
scenarios, because they felt self-conscious. Several of the
subjects themselves stated this as the reason that they used less
BC during the scenarios than they would in a regular conversation.
For example, one subject wrote on her survey,
I feel I was aware of the videotape during the experiment &
therefore signed less (mostly because everyone tells me I sign
alot!)
The other reason the subjects may have signed less during
the scenarios is that the different assumptions the subjects had
about their conversants' signing ability might have caused the
subjects to behave differently. They might use BC more with people
whom they know can sign than with other people. The subjects were
engaged in role-playing situations where the other conversant would
not be likely to know sign; whereas each subject knew that the other
did, in fact, know some ASL. A quote from one subject supports
this hypothesis. She wrote:
For me it feels more natural to add some signs as I'm speaking; and
if I was with someone that would understand any of them, I would
tend to do that more than if I were with a hearing person that
didn't know diddly about sign language.
The uses of BC will be discussed in greater detail in section 6.2.
6.1.2 The Third Hypothesis: Signers vs. Non-Signers
The third hypothesis, which was tested by the second experiment,
is that people can tell signers from non-signers by looking at their
gestures. Z-tests were performed comparing the guesses of each
group (signers vs. non-signers) on the signing level of each dyad
which they saw with the dyad's actual signing level. Z-tests are
used to compare sampled data against actual values. Z-tests were
made for two gradations of signing level: In one gradation, all
signers were grouped simply as `signers'. In the other gradation,
signers were broken down into beginning, intermediate, and advanced
levels. Tables 6.2 and 6.3 contain the results for the first
gradation; tables 6.4 and 6.5 contain the results for the second
one. Note that the null hypothesis in this case is that the guessed
level does NOT equal the actual level of signing ability. This
means that the null hypothesis should be rejected, at the alpha =
.05 level for a two-tailed test, only if 0.475 <= p <= 0.525. The
evidence from the data indicates that we cannot reject the null
hypothesis.
Table 6.2. Non-signers' guesses of dyads' skills. This table compares
the guessed vs. the actual skill level of the dyads, at four signing
levels.
ACTUAL GUESSED SD Z p
LEVEL* LEVEL
___________________________________________________
3 0.37 .74 -3.55 0.0002
3 1.74 .81 -1.56 0.06
3 1.93 .96 -1.11 0.13
2 0.52 .70 -2.12 0.02
2 1.48 .85 -0.61 0.27
NS 0.15 .46 0.30 0.62
NS 1.04 .81 1.28 0.09
*NS = Non-Signers; 2 = intermediate signers; 3 = advanced signers
Table 6.3. Signers' guesses of dyads' skills. This table compares
the guessed vs. the actual skill level of the dyads, at four signing
levels.
ACTUAL GUESSED SD Z p
LEVEL* LEVEL
___________________________________________________
3 1.00 .65 -3.08 0.001
3 1.56 .92 -1.56 0.06
3 2.32 .99 -0.69 0.25
2 0.72 .94 -1.36 0.09
2 2.12 .88 -0.14 0.56
NS 0.56 .66 0.85 0.80
NS 1.20 .78 1.54 0.94
*NS = Non-Signers; 2 = intermediate signers; 3 = advanced signers
Table 6.4. Non-signers' guesses of dyads' skills. This table compares
the guessed vs. the actual skill level of the dyads, at two signing
levels.
ACTUAL GUESSED SD Z p
LEVEL* LEVEL
___________________________________________________
S 0.26 .45 1.68 0.05
S 0.85 .36 0.42 0.34
S 0.89 .32 0.34 0.37
S 0.40 .50 1.18 0.12
S 0.85 .36 0.42 0.34
NS 0.11 .32 -0.34 0.63
NS 0.74 .45 -1.68 0.95
*NS = Non-Signers; S = Signers
Table 6.5. Signers' guesses of dyads' skills. This table compares
the guessed vs. the actual skill level of the dyads, at two signing
levels.
ACTUAL GUESSED SD Z p
LEVEL* LEVEL
___________________________________________________
S 0.80 .41 -0.49 0.31
S 0.84 .37 -0.43 0.33
S 0.92 .28 -0.29 0.39
S 0.48 .51 -1.02 0.15
S 0.92 .28 -0.29 0.39
NS 0.48 .51 0.92 0.82
NS 0.79 .41 1.93 0.97
*NS = Non-Signers; S = Signers
Even though there is no evidence in support of the third
hypothesis, more research should be conducted before it is
completely rejected. The current experiment used samples taken
from a scenario. It has been pointed out above that some signers
used much more BC between scenarios than they did during scenarios.
It is possible that the second experiment would have supported the
third hypothesis if the samples used were taken from between
scenarios. Additionally, the signers who watched the tapes for the
second experiment were all beginners. The results of the
experiment might also have been different had more advanced signers
viewed the tapes. Because of these factors, it would be premature
to reject the third hypothesis until further research is conducted.
6.1.3 The Fourth Hypothesis: BC and Tenseness
The fourth hypothesis is that individuals will use more BC when
they are relaxed than when they are tense. Section 6.1.1 already discussed
the fact that the advanced signers used far more BC between
scenarios, when they were relaxed, than they did during the
scenarios, when they reported feeling very self-
conscious.
Recall that this was not the only way Hypothesis
Four was to be tested. The second test was to see if people who
feel closer to each other use more BC than those who do not feel
as close. To test this, the SAS GLM procedure was used to model
the behavior of the dependent variables of BC rate within and
between scenarios using the independent variables of signing level
and the reported relationships between dyad members. The
probability of the regression variable being zero for the
relationship variable was .40 for the between scenarios BC rate,
but only .001 for the within scenario BC rate. This shows that how
well the subjects knew each other affected the amount of BC they
used within scenarios, but not between scenarios.
The explanation for this finding may depend on the pairing of
people according to signing ability and on the nature of the scenarios
chosen. Dyad members knew that their partners were in the same
sign class levels as themselves. As mentioned in section 6.1.1,
the roles involved were such that participants would be likely to
assume that their partners would be playing the role of someone who
did not know sign. Signers who knew each other well, however, would
find it harder to treat their partners as non-signers. Thus, the
relationship between the partners would affect BC rate during
scenario performance, but not between scenarios, when the partners
could react to each other in accordance with their knowledge of
each other's true abilities. If this is the correct explanation
of these findings, then it is evidence that BC rate will be affected
not only by how self-conscious signers are feeling, but also by
whether they believe that the people with whom they are conversing
know sign.
6.1.4 The Fifth Hypothesis: Motivation and BC
The fifth hypothesis is that individuals having an integrative
motive to learn to sign will have higher BC rates than comparable subjects
without such motivations. The SAS GLM procedure was used to model
the behavior of the dependent variables of BC rate within and
between scenarios using the independent variables of signing level
and motivation. The probability that the regression parameter for
motivation is zero was .63 for the BC rate within scenarios, and
.85 for the BC rate between scenarios. This means that we can not
reject the null hypothesis. In other words, there appears to be
no relationship between the reasons people learn to sign and the
amount of BC they use.
6.1.5 The Sixth Hypothesis: Type of Signing and BC
The final hypothesis is that subjects whose sign is
closer to a Manually Coded English will have a higher BC rate than
comparable subjects who sign is closer to American Sign Language.
Three measures were used to assess the type of signing an
individual used. The first two were questions six and seven on the
survey, which asked the subjects to report the type of signing with
which they felt most comfortable, and the type of signing which
they used most. The final assessment, the one based on the
sentences the subjects signed, has been discussed in the last
chapter. It was mentioned then that only the beginning signers
actually displayed a wide range of signing styles.
The correlations between BC and the signing variety which the
subjects reported themselves using most and between BC and the signing
variety with which the subjects felt most comfortable were not
significant (r = .004, p < .98; and r = .19, p < .57, respectively
for the scenarios, and r = .07, p < .71; and r = .02, p < .92,
respectively for the time between the scenarios). These
correlations provide no evidence to reject the null hypothesis,
which is that the signing variety is not an important factor in the
amount of BC used.
The correlation between the amount of
BC used and the beginning students' signing variety, as measured
by the numbers of MCE structures exhibited in the student
translations, was r = -.10, p < .70 for the scenarios, and r = .06,
p < .82 for the time between the scenarios. These correlations do
not allow us to reject the null hypothesis. They provide no
evidence that signing variety affects BC rate.
6.1.6 Research Question: Awareness of BC
A correlation was performed on the amount of BC the signing subjects
thought that they and their partners used, and the actual amount used. The
results were as follows: r = .40, p = .03 for the amount of BC
subjects thought they used relative to the amount they actually
used, but r = -.08, p = .65 for the amount of BC subjects thought
their partners used correlated with the amount the partners
actually used. This shows that the subjects were much more aware
of their own use of BC than of their partners'. This simple
correlation, however, does not reveal the fact, obvious from table
6.6, that the more advanced signers greatly underestimated the
actual amount of BC which they used. This table shows the sums by
level of the numbers of instances of BC which individuals thought
they and their partners used, versus the number actually used. The
numbers in the third and seventh columns differ because, when an
individual remembered signing something, it was not counted as an
instance of BC in the third column; but it was counted as one in
the seventh column, since the partner had no way of knowing that
the individual remembered making the sign. This indicates that,
whether or not they were aware of their use of BC while they were
using it, at least they were unable to recall those instances a few
minutes later.
Table 6.6. Actual vs. guessed amount of BC by signers and their
partners.
SELF
LEVEL* GUESSED USED
X' SD mu z p
___________________________________________________
1 1.00 1.47 0.50 1.43 0.08
2 3.25 1.94 11.17 4.08 0.000032
3 2.67 1.60 5.67 4.62 0.000003
PARTNER
LEVEL* GUESSED USED
X' SD mu z p
___________________________________________________
1 1.72 2.45 0.50 2.10 0.0179
2 1.17 1.29 11.50 19.49 < 1 * 10^10
3 2.10 2.01 5.67 3.97 0.000036
*NS = non-Signers; 1 = beginning signers; 2 = intermediate signers
3 = advanced signers
6.1.7 Research Question: Subjects' Feelings Towards BC
Appendix G contains a complete list of all of the subjects' answers to the
survey question concerning their feelings when they realize they
are using BC. Some subjects from all three signing levels indicate
positive feelings toward their use of BC. Indeed, the intermediate
signers had only positive feelings toward it. The beginning and
advanced signers' feelings ranged the gamut from positive, to
neutral, to negative. However, only one out of nine beginners had
negative feelings toward using BC, while fully a third of the
advanced signers did. These negative feelings appear to be
reflected in the fact that the advanced signers used far less BC
during the scenarios than they did between the scenarios.
The data from the Joe scenario, which had been chosen to indicate
one member of the dyad's latent feelings towards BC, was mixed.
Recall that in this scenario, one individual simulated insanity.
It had been hypothesized that during the scenario, this person
would do things which society normally censures. Therefore, if
this subject felt that the general population had negative views
of BC, this individual might have exhibited a higher BC rate in
this scenario than in other scenarios. A comparison of the means
for partner B in each of the intermediate and advanced dyads was
made for their BC rate in the Joe scenario as compared with their
BC rate in three of the four other scenarios. Although the means
were quite different (X'Joe = 147.7, X'Other 3 = 65), this
difference was not statistically significant.
6.2 Reasons BC is Used
6.2.1 Survey Answers Concerning Reasons for BC Use
A complete listing of subjects' answers to questions
eighteen and nineteen appears in Appendix G. Most subjects believe
that using BC aids in communication processing. Four hypotheses
were put forth as to how it does so. First, the subjects posit
that BC helps their interlocutor to decode their message. Second,
they claim to use it to illustrate, clarify, or emphasize a point.
Next, they employ it stylistically, because they can't find the mot
juste in English. Finally, they use it in circumstances adverse
to easy communication in English alone. Three examples of such
circumstances are speaking to people with a limited command of
English, and speaking in noisy environments and in libraries.
Although there is no direct evidence in the data for either the
first or the last of these claims, there are examples of BC being
used for the second and third reasons given above. These examples
will be presented in sections 6.2.2 and 6.2.3.
In contrast to the subjects' hypothesis that BC aids the
communication process, a few subjects noted that others have commented to them
that their use of BC was a distraction or an irritation. At least one
individual, whose scenario data were not included in the study,
entertained both hypotheses simultaneously. She wrote
[T]he spoken word is limiting & bimodal communication is a way much
can be added to an interaction. My friends and parents are about
to kill me for adding sign so often to what I'm saying.
The other hypotheses put forth by the subjects as to why
they use BC each had far fewer positers than the communication
hypothesis. They are: (1) BC is a side-effect of the language
learning process; (2) BC is used to express emotions; and (3) BC
is used as an identity marker. Many of the subjects also commented
that they were not conscious of using BC, unless someone pointed
out their usage to them.
6.2.2 The Functions of BC and Code-Changing
Chapter Two presented six functions which code-changes serve, namely:
strategic negotiation, identity marking, domain marking, compensation,
accommodation, and stylistic effect. This section examines the
data for evidence of BC being used in each of these ways.
There is evidence from the data of signs being used for the purposes
of strategic negotiation and identity marking, although it is
sometimes difficult to determine which of these two purposes a sign
is serving. One fairly clear-cut example of a sign being used for
the former purpose was done by a beginning signer. In this example,
B's use of PHONE is strategic: She made the sign to reassure her
partner:
A: Are you using your hand [i.e., to make the `phone' sign], or
am I being silly?
B: Oh, it doesn't matter. I'll do it. (B then held the phone briefly, for
about a second.)
Another example of signs being used strategically occurs
in the following conversation. Here, B, an advanced signer, uses
signs in a back- channel utterance to indicate agreement with A:
B signed I TOUCH-HEART while A was speaking. B says nothing
A: She appeals to my friendship side
Neither of the two examples above actually involves BC.
In neither case does the signer say anything while she is signing.
These two examples are useful, however, in illustrating how BC
might be used for strategic negotiation. One example of BC
actually being used strategically occurs in the following exchange
between two advanced signers:
A: You know more than I do.
B: As usual. A: Ooh...(Good?) (Tone of voice indicates,"Touch!".
While she said, `good,' she signed REVENGE)
In A's final comment, she divides her message between
the two communication modes. She uses her primary, oral, mode to
improve her relationship with B by indicating her admiration for
B's quick riposte. She relegates her acknowledgement that she is
the butt of B's joke to her secondary, visual, mode of
communication. She uses the two modes to present different, but
complementary, messages. This was one of the rare instances in the
data which involved something different being signed than being
said.
The data include numerous instances of BC which do
not seem to be used for the purpose of strategic negotiation, or
for stylistic effect, or to add to or clarify a spoken message.
These examples thus appear to be uses of BC as an identity marker.
Two such cases follow; a perusal of Appendix F will reveal many
others.
1. A signed NEXT while saying, `over the next ten days.'
2. B signed FEEL while saying, `I'm feeling very pressured.'
One instance of simultaneous communication being used as
an identity marker is unusual enough to warrant discussion. An
advanced signer simultaneously communicated the sentence, `I am not
signing.' Neither her tone of voice nor her facial expression
indicated that she intended this to be a joke. She obviously did
not wish the utterance to be interpreted at face-value; it is, in
its literal interpretation, self- contradictory. The most likely
intended interpretation seems to be, `I am not going to sign
anymore, even though I have the ability to do so.' She used SC to
mark herself as a signer in the very same utterance in which she
stated that she wouldn't sign.
Section 6.2.1 alluded to the fact that some of the subjects reported
using BC as an identity marker. One subject, for example, stated during the
debriefing that
I'll say something in ASL, like `for for?' [she simultaneously
signed FOR-FOR] ...but I think that's more, just kind of joking
around; but not consciously.
Such a joke relies for its humor on the shared identity of the
conversants as signers.
It is not surprising that there were no instances in the data of
BC being used as a domain marker. A pre-requisite of BC being used as a domain
marker is that each code must be typically used in a specified range of domains.
This pre-requisite is not met.
There were very few instances of any type of compensation in the data.
This is to be expected, since compensation, by definition, occurs when speakers use
one code because they cannot access the information from the other code rapidly
enough. The conversations took place in the subjects' stronger language (i.e,
English). It is impossible to use BC as compensation. BC requires the successful
access of both codes. Nevertheless, there appear to be instances of code-changing being
used compensatorily; e.g.,
My chance to go to St. John's on a honeymoon is, you know, like
(signed NOTHING) nil.
The subject appears to have had trouble accessing the English word
`nil'. She silently signed NOTHING. Only then did she orally
complete her utterance with `nil'.
The data did not permit a test of whether BC is used for the purpose
of accommodation. Accommodation occurs when one conversant believes that the
other can not converse comfortably in one of the languages being used,
or when one conversant changes communication style to become more
or less like that of the other conversant(s). In this experiment,
all of the subjects communicated primarily in English, which they
knew to be their partners' strong language. They were also paired
with people of approximately equal signing ability. The subjects
would therefore have had no reason to use BC to accommodate to their
partners. It was noted in section 6.2.1, however, that several
subjects claimed to use BC to accommodate to people whose knowledge
of English was limited (whether or not the other people knew ASL).
They also claimed to accommodate to other people when
circumstances, such as a noisy environment, hindered oral
communication. Whether or not people actually use BC for
accommodation must remain a topic for further research.
The final use of code-changing is for stylistic effect. There were
abundant examples of BC being used for this purpose. In fact, all
non- baton and non-regulator illustrators were used either to
employ the mot juste, or to emphasize or clarify the spoken
utterance. The next section will give several instances of BC
being used for stylistic effect. There is also one instance in the
data of a sequential borrowing being used for this reason. An
advanced signer said
Is this {signed STRAIGHT}? You're really {signed STRAIGHT again}?
This occurred during the `news' scenario. The speaker was not
convinced that the listener was being completely truthful. The
sign STRAIGHT can, in this context, be translated as `on the up and
up'. The sign, however, has other uses. It can also be translated
as `on the straight and narrow'. For example, a person who does
not lie, smoke, or drink, and who is not promiscuous, can be said
to be STRAIGHT. In this context, STRAIGHT may have been chosen
over possible English alternatives because it concisely conveys the
idea that the speaker is not only asking about whether the hearer
is being truthful in this instance, but whether the hearer is an
honest person in general.
There is one final piece of evidence that at least one reason BC is
used is to help the listener-viewer understand the speaker-signer's message.
This evidence involves the surprise scenario. Recall that in this
scenario the conversants sat back-to-back, and so were unable to
see each other. A comparison was made of the intermediate and
advanced signers' use of BC in this scenario as compared with three
of the four other scenarios. The comparison revealed that these
signers used a statistically significantly smaller amount of BC in
the surprise scenario than in the other three (X'Surprise = 14.1,
X'Other 3 = 59.1; t = 2.42, p < .05, for a one-tailed t-test with
paired observations).
Let us now turn to a discussion comparing BC uses with the different
types of illustrators.
6.2.3 BC and Illustrators
Appendix E contains a description of the
eight types of illustrators which will be discussed in this
section. Appendix F shows the categorization by illustrator type
of each instance of BC in the data.
Two coders independently categorized 46% of the data by illustrator
type. A .95 reliability, using Scott's coefficient, was achieved.
Tables 6.7 and 6.8 contain a breakdown of the number and percentages of each
type of illustrator used by each sign level. Table 6.7 is for the
data within scenarios, while table 6.8 concerns the data between
the scenarios.
Table 6.7. Number and percentage of types of illustrators used for
BC within scenarios by signing level.
Level* / Types
B** K D S P R REG
___________________________________________________________________
NS 1 (14***) 6 (86) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
1 1 (10) 9 (90) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
2 28 (43) 18 (28) 6 (9) 3 (5) 3 (5) 3 (5) 4 (6)
3 12 (43) 9 (32) 6 (21) 1 (4) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Ttl 42 (38) 42 (38) 12 (11) 4 (4) 3 (3) 3 (3) 4 (4)
*NS = Non-signers; 1 = beginning signers; 2 = intermediate signers
3 = advanced signers; Ttl = all subjects
** The following abbreviations are used: B = baton; K = kinetograph;
D = deictic; S = spatial movements; P = pictograph; R = rhythmic
movement; REG = regulator. There were no instances of ideographs
in the data.
*** Numbers outside of parentheses indicate the actual number of
instances there were of a given illustrator type for a given level.
Numbers in parentheses, which indicate the percentage of instances of
BC which are of the specified illustrator type for a given level, may
not total 100, due to rounding.
Table 6.8. Number and percentage of types of illustrators used for
BC within scenarios by signing level.
Level* / Types
B** K D S P R REG
___________________________________________________________________
NS 0 (0***) 1 (50) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (50) 0 (0) 0 (0)
1 0 (0) 1 (50) 1 (50) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
2 11 (52) 9 (43) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (5) 0 (0) 0 (0)
3 13 (48) 2 (7) 10 (37) 0 (0) 1 (4) 1 (4) 0 (0)
Ttl 24 (46) 13 (25) 11 (21) 0 (0) 3 (6) 1 (2) 0 (0)
*NS = Non-signers; 1 = beginning signers; 2 = intermediate signers
3 = advanced signers; Ttl = all subjects
** The following abbreviations are used: B = baton; K = kinetograph;
D = deictic; S = spatial movements; P = pictograph; R = rhythmic
movement; REG = regulator. There were no instances of ideographs
in the data.
*** Numbers outside of parentheses indicate the actual number of
instances there were of a given illustrator type for a given level.
Numbers in parentheses, which indicate the percentage of instances of
BC which are of the specified illustrator type for a given level, may
not total 100, due to rounding.
Several facts are apparent from these
tables. First, intermediate and advanced signers behave
differently than non-signers and beginners with respect to the
types of illustrators they use. Most of the non- signers' and
beginners' uses of BC were kinetographs, whereas a much smaller
percentage of the more skilled signers were. This was expected,
since kinetographs are the most mimetic type of illustrators, and thus
one of the types most accessible to non-signers. The other easily
accessible one is deictics, which often take the form of pointing with
the index finger. Indeed, this is the form used by the ASL I student in
table 6.8. The deictics of more advanced signers included not only this
type of pointing, but also indicating locations by means of
handshapes not likely to be used by non- signers. One
example of this is an advanced signer's use of the sign FEEL. This
sign is made with the hand fully opened, except for the middle
finger, which is bent at the first joint at roughly a right angle.
The bent finger strokes the chest in one upward movement, thus
indexing the heart, which is the metaphorical location of emotions.
Another fact which emerges from the tables is that 89% of all
instances of BC are deictics, kinetographs, or batons. Recall that
batons, in this categorization, are signs which cannot be placed
according to Ekman and Friesen's illustrator scheme. This scheme
has met with general success in categorizing non-signers' gestures.
And indeed, in this present study less than 10% of the non-signers'
and beginners' uses of BC are so categorized. The fact that 45%
of the intermediate and advanced signers' uses of BC are batons
indicates that BC is used by skilled signers in ways which gestures
are not used by non-signers. This supports the hypothesis that the
signers are not merely using the signs as gestures; but, rather,
that they are retaining and employing the lexical meanings of the
signs. A sub-categorization of the batons used by the more
advanced signers will be left for further research.
The single pictograph used by a non-singer deserves special
attention. The researcher tried to avoid signing while the dyads were being
taped. However, she caught herself making a sign (a classifier
indicating large eyes) between scenarios during the taping of one
non- signing dyad. One of the subjects, to indicate agreement with
what the researcher had just said, repeated verbatim the
researcher's utterance; and, while doing so, imitated the
researcher's sign. It is this repetition which constitutes the
sole use of a pictograph, or a non-emblem, by either non-signers
or beginning signers. This repetition, however, shows that people
accommodate to their conversants not only in their speaking, but
in their gesturing, as well. This provides a small amount of
additional support to the hypothesis that BC rate is at least
partly determined by signers' perceptions of the signing skills of
their conversants.
The kinetographs KNOCK and PHONE exhibited an interesting distribution.
There was a ready opportunity for each subject to make each of these signs at least
once. The surprise scenario takes place on the telephone. Both
conversants had a choice of using a hand to simulate the phone.
One logical starting point for the key scenario was for role B to
knock on A's door. Similarly, one way to begin the Joe scenario
was to have A knocking on B's door. Moreover, these kinetographs
are emblems; there are even several instances of non-signers making
them. Thus, a knowledge of sign was not needed to make use of these
kinetographs. However, as table 6.9 indicates, the non-signers
still made them far less than the signers did.
Table 6.9. PHONE and KNOCK vs. Signing level
Level NS All 1 2 3
Signers*
___________________________________________________________
# in level 20 30 18 6 6
% of number using 30 60 50 67 83
correct PHONE
% of number using 50 90 94 83 83
any phone
Avg. % of time used 26 39 30 50 68
correct PHONE
Avg. % of time used 29 49 47 52 68
any phone
% correct KNOCKs 30 76 76 83 67
% any knocks 55 86 88 83 83
*This column consists of all the signing students taken as a group.
The following three columns give a more detailed breakdown, according
to signing skills. (NS = Non-signers; 1 = beginning signers;
2 = intermediate signers; 3 = advanced signers)
Table 6.9 contains several rows. The first row indicates
the number of people which fall into each column category. The
next row shows the percent of people using the PHONE sign in the
surprise scenario. The following row gives the percent of people
who made any type of gesture indicating the use of a phone in this
scenario. This row, unlike the second row, also includes gestures
which differ from the sign PHONE. The next two rows reflect the
fact that different people held their phones for different amounts
of time. These rows give the percentage of time in the surprise
scenario during which the subjects held the sign PHONE and any
gesture for `phone'. The last two rows show the percent of subjects
who used the sign KNOCK and who made any type of knocking gesture.
It is evident from this table that the signers used far more
knocking and phoning gestures than non-signers. Chi-square tests
of association were used to compare the percent of signers vs. non-
signers performing each gesture or sign. These tests showed that
the probability that these differences are due to chance are
extremely small: p < .02 for percent using PHONE sign, p < .0008
for percent using any `phone' gesture, p < .14 for percent of time
PHONE sign was used, p < .05 for percent of time any phone was used,
p < .0007 for percent using KNOCK sign, and p < .003 for percent
using any `knock' gesture.
These particular signs and gestures were executed to indicate non-
existent props (a phone and a door) during the scenarios. This might cause one
to question whether such signs and gestures would be used in less theatric
contexts. The data reveal that the signs and gestures for `phone'
were, indeed, also used by subjects in other contexts. Several
subjects used PHONE, after the Joe scenario, when they discussed
their having called the police during the scenario. This portion
of the discussion sometimes took the form of the subject briefly
re-entering her role, but at other times it took the form of a
narration of what her character did.
The signs PHONE and KNOCK account for a disproportionately high
amount of the instances of BC; together, these two signs alone were 60% of the
non-signers' BC occurrences, and 12% of signers' uses of BC. There are a couple
of possible reasons for this. One reason, mentioned in the last
paragraph, is that these signs were made to indicate props during
the scenarios, and hence the high number of instances of these
signs is an artifact of the experimental design. It was, in fact,
for this very possibility that the surprise scenario was included
in the experiment. This reason might be able to account for the
use of PHONE during times when the subject was engaged in the
strategic interactions, but it does not explain the high usage of
the sign during the narrations. The other explanation for the
frequent between-scenarios use of PHONE may be that this sign is a
common emblem, and consequently the signer's knowledge of this
gesture as both a sign and an emblem provide additional motivation
for using the sign. This brings us to the use of emblems.
6.2.4 BC and Emblems
Table 6.10 shows, by signing level, the percentage of
instances of BC which were emblems. An attempt was made in the
coding to minimize the number of emblems in this study by ensuring
that the only emblematic gestures which counted as instances of BC
were those in which the gesture was identical to the citation form
of the equivalent sign. For example, subjects frequently pointed
in the direction of their partners. These gestures were not
counted as the sign YOU unless they had the exact handshape and
movement of the sign. The inter-coder reliability for determining
whether a sign was an emblem or a non-emblem was .75, using Scott's
coefficient. Seventy percent of the data was coded by both coders.
Table 6.10. Number and percentage of emblems between and within
scenarios by signing level.
WITHIN SCENARIOS BETWEEN SCENARIOS
Level* #E** #NE %E %NE #E #NE %E %NE
____________________________________________________________________
NS 7 0 100 0 1 1*** 50 50
1 10 0 100 0 2 0 100 0
2 24 41 37 63 9 10 43 57
3 10 18 36 64 10 12 37 63
*NS = Non-signers; 1 = beginning signers; 2 = intermediate signers;
3 = advanced signers
**E = emblem; NE = Non-emblem
***This non-emblem was made in imitation of a non-emblem made
by the researcher
The single non-emblem being made by a non-signer was the
aforementioned instance of a subject imitating the (signing)
researcher. Except for this, all of the signs made by non-signers
or beginners were emblems. This was to be expected, since an emblem
is defined in this dissertation as a gesture which a non-signer
might use. This use of emblems contrasts sharply, however, with
the intermediate and advanced signers' percentages. About 60% of
the signs made by these more skilled signers were non-emblems.
This indicates that the instances of BC cannot be accounted for
simply by an increase in the rate of emblems per hour used by
signers. The signers are using things which are distinctly signs,
and which would not be interpreted as "mere gestures."
Table 6.11 shows the rate of instances of bimodally communicated
emblems and non-emblems per hour according to signing level. The
times indicated are the total amount of time that the dyads in each
of the levels were videotaped, during and between scenarios. This
table shows that intermediate and advanced signers not only use
more non-emblematic signs per hour than non-signers and beginners,
but they use more emblematic signs per hour, as well.
Table 6.11. Rates per hour of emblematic and non-emblematic BC use,
within and between scenarios, bu skill level.
WITHIN SCENARIOS
_______________
Level* NS 1 2 3
# emblems 7 10 24 10
# non-emblems 0 0 41 18
total time** 136 96 67 51
emblem rate 3 6 22 12
non-emblem rate 0 0 37 21
BETWEEN SCENARIOS
_________________
level NS 1 2 3
# emblems 1 2 9 10
# non-emblems 1*** 0 12 17
total time 29 22 11 11
emblem rate 2 5 48 57
non-emblem rate 2 0 64 97
*NS = Non-signers; 1 = beginning signers; 2 = intermediate signers;
3 = advanced signers
** All times are in minutes. All rates are in instances per hour.
*** This non-emblem was made in imitation of the researcher's use of a
non-emblem.
6.2.5 A Summary of the Uses of BC
Several uses of BC have been discussed above. BC is used to improve
the transmission of a message. It is used, primarily in the form of batons,
kinetographs, and deictics, to clarify, emphasize, or enhance the
oral utterance. It is used as an identity marker and as a means
of strategic negotiation. Several of the subjects report using BC,
even when speaking with non-signers, to accommodate their
conversants under circumstances adverse to an easily understood
English conversation. Further research might reveal other uses of
BC.
6.3 Syntactic Constraints on BC
6.3.1 BC as Borrowing and Code-Switching
Table 6.12 presents the number and percentage of
instances of BC in the data which were borrowed or code-switched.
The single instance of a non-signer code-switching is the
aforementioned imitation by a subject of the researcher's use of
BC. This table shows a sharp division between the people who are
of at least an intermediate skill level and those less skilled in
sign. If one excludes the aforementioned exception, all instances
of BC by non-signers and beginners are borrowings. In contrast to
this, approximately one out of five instances of BC by the
intermediate and advanced signers were code-switches. These code-
switches indicate that the more skilled signers are not treating
signs, when they are speaking, as merely stock gestures which are
readily available for use, but that they are still using them as
elements of a language which can be combined according to the
grammar of American Sign Language.
Table 6.12. Number and percent of BC instances which are borrowings and
code-switches by signing level
Level* NS 1 2 3
___________________________________________________
# borrowings 8 12 69 44
# code-switches 1 0 17 11
% borrowings 90 100 80 82
% code-switches 10 0 20 18
*NS = Non-signers; 1 = beginning signers; 2 = intermediate signers;
3 = advanced signers
The code-switches generally fell into one of two
categories. The first group involved a syntactic category, such as
classifier, used in ASL but not in English. The fact that instances
of this type of code-switch exist gives further evidence that Sankoff
and Poplack's equivalence constraint is not universally obeyed. Recall
that this constraint states that
the order of sentence constituents immediately adjacent to and on
both sides of the switch point must be grammatical with respect to
both languages involved simultaneously...[T]he local co-
grammaticality or equivalence of the two languages in the vicinity
of the switch holds as long as the order of any two sentence
elements, one before and one after the switch point, is not
excluded in either language. (Sankoff and Poplack, 1981:5-6)
Since English does not have classifiers, any ordering of
words involving classifiers would be excluded in English. The
equivalence constraint would thus predict that there should be no
ASL-English code- switches involving individual classifiers at
switch-points. An example of such a code-switch from the data
is: A: letter `G' classifier (CL:G, which is used to
indicate thinness) moves to trace threesides of ahorizontal square,
while subject says: First they have to caulk around the building
The second type of code-switching found in the data also involved
the articulation of individual signs; these signs, however, were
multimorphemic. The morphology of the signs obeys the rules for
ASL, but not for English. Two examples of this type of code-switch
involve the sign WEEK. One signer incorporated the handshape for
the number "two" into the basic sign, in order to form TWO-WEEKS.
Another signer changed the movement involved in the sign in order
to articulate ONE-WEEK-FROM-NOW. Several other multimorphemic
signs in the data were directional verbs which had movements
showing agreement between the verbs and their subjects and/or
objects.
6.3.2 BC and Syntactic Categories Table 6.13 shows a breakdown
according to lexical category of the number of instances of BC for
each signing level. Two facts immediately emerge from these data.
The majority of signs used by non-signers and beginners are not
used in the context of language; but merely as visual "sound
effects," mainly indicating a phone ringing or a person knocking
on a door. The more advanced signers have a much smaller percentage
of their BC usage as visual "sound effects." Instead, their uses
of BC range across a wide variety of lexical categories, although
the open class categories (i.e., nouns, verbs, adjectives and
adverbs) include over three quarters of their instances of BC.
This accords with other researchers' findings (e.g., Lederberg and
Morales, 1985, Poplack, 1988) that there is a greater tendency to
code-change open class words than to code-change closed class ones.
The research reported here contrasts with other research in that
the plurality of the instances of BC involved verbs; whereas the
plurality of code-changes noted by other researchers (e.g., Meloni,
1982, Poplack, 1988) involved single nouns. The reason for the
difference is left as a point for future research. One hypothesis
to be pursued in the future is that, in this respect, BC is
patterning more closely to the use of illustrators than the use of
code-changing. McNeill (1986:125) hypothesized that:
each gesture indicates what, in the momentary conceptual representation of the
discourse, is regarded by the speaker as the most important new
meaning.
It seems reasonable to posit that the distribution of BC across
syntactic categories reflects the fact that verbs often carry the
new information presented in a sentence.
Table 6.13. The number and percentage of instances of BC according to
lexical category by signing level.
LEXICAL CATEGORY/ LEVEL*
NS 1 2 3
______________________________________________________
Noun 1 (11**) 0 (0) 14 (16) 6 (11)
Pronoun 0 (0) 2 (17) 1 (1) 9 (16)
Verb 1 (11) 0 (0) 33 (38) 24 (44)
Auxiliary 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1) 0 (0)
Adjective 0 (0) 0 (0) 16 (17) 10 (18)
Conjunction 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1) 0 (0)
Cl & SASS*** 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (3) 2 (4)
Adverb 0 (0) 0 (0) 7 (8) 4 (7)
"Sound effects"**** 6 (67) 10 (83) 4 (5) 0 (0)
Other 1 (11) 0 (0) 6 (7) 0 (0)
*NS = Non-signers; 1 = beginning signers; 2 = intermediate signers;
3 = advanced signers
**Numbers outside of parentheses are the number of instances of the
categories for each signing level. Numbers in parentheses are percentages
for each signing level. Due to rounding, percentages may not total 100.
***i.e., classifiers and size and shape specifiers
****e.g., the visual accompaniments to the sound effects of a phone ringing,
or someone knocking on a door. These sound effects do not belong to any
lexical category.
Table 6.14 shows, by signing level, the numbers and
percentages of instances of BC for which the sign occurred before,
during, and after its spoken counterpart. The non-signers and
beginners only used signs at the same time as the spoken
equivalent. The intermediate signers signed both before and during
the spoken equivalent; while the advanced signers signed before,
during, or after the spoken equivalent. It is obvious, however,
that the great majority of signs (91%) are made at the same time
as the spoken counterpart, and only a very small number (1%) are
made afterwards. There appears to be a constraint against having
the sign appear after its oral counterpart. Skilled signers make
the sign before the spoken equivalent approximately 8% of the time.
This indicates that, while there is no absolute constraint against
this ordering, it is nowhere near as likely to occur as a
simultaneity of utterance. This may be the result of general
processing demands. These overall findings accord with the
research conducted on the ordering of gestures with speech. Such
studies can not examine the order on narrow semantic grounds, since
gestures rarely have as specific a meaning as signs, by their very
nature, have. Therefore, these studies examine the position of
gestures within their corresponding Tone Units. McNeill (1992:42)
states that
Gestures are integrated into the speech output. They anticipate
the speech in their preparation phase, and synchronize with it in
the stroke phase, which is timed to end at, or before, but not
after, the peak syllable [in the corresponding Tone Unit].
Table 6.14. The ordering of signs with respect to their spoken
equivalents, by skill levels.
LEVEL* B** D A
______________________________________________
NS 0 (0) 9 (100) 0 (0)
1 0 (0) 12 (100) 0 (0)
2 7 (8) 79 (92) 0 (0)
3 5 (9) 48 (87) 2 (4)
Total 12 (7) 148 (91) 2 (1***)
*NS = Non-signers; 1 = beginning signers; 2 = intermediate signers;
3 = advanced signers; Total = all subjects
**B,D, and A respectively stand for the number (and percent) of signs
made before, durung, and after their spoken equivalent in instances of BC
***Percents, indicated in parentheses, may not total 100, due to rounding
6.4 Other Findings
A number of the intermediate and advanced
signers, but no non- signers or beginners, made several signs with
reduced movements, or in locations not normally expected for the
sign. Intermediate signers made seven reduced signs, which were a
total of 8% of their BC uses. Advanced signers made eight reduced
signs, which were a total of 15% of their BC uses. For example, one
subject was resting her arms on the armrests of her chair. She kept her
arms still, but raised her hands to articulate the handshape and
movement for KEY. This sign is usually made with the hands making
contact in neutral space. Her sign was distinct enough, however,
to be independently recognized and identified by the coders. Some
of the "half-articulated" signs were not as clearly identifiable.
On several occasions, the coders were able to recognize a hand
configuration as a sign, but were unable to identify the specific
sign until they reviewed the tape with the volume on. Both coders
had the impression that these signs "came out, in spite of the
subjects"; that the subjects did not wish to sign, but could not
prevent themselves from doing so. This impression is consistent
with an anecdote the author wishes to present. Several people,
ranging from professional (computer programming) colleagues to
friends and family, have a running joke with her which says that
if one wishes to gag her, one needs simply to tie up her hands.
Both the impression given by the reduced signs and the above
anecdote show that people who view signers communicating in English
believe that the signs become such an integral part of the signers'
communication that speaking without signing would be extremely
difficult for them. Further research might be able to provide more
substantial support for this hypothesis.
One other interesting finding is that signs used in BC are subject
to at least one of the same errors as signs used in simultaneous communication;
namely, that signers sometimes choose the wrong sign to express an
English homonym. For example, an intermediate signer made the sign
for picture, in the sense of "photograph," while saying, "I was
picturing you at work." No accurate translation of this sentence
into ASL would use this sign. Instead, a sign such as IMAGINE would
be used.
6.5 Summary of Major Findings The amount of sign people know
affects their BC rate. Between scenarios, there was a linear
relationship between signing ability and BC rate. Within
scenarios, when the subjects were self-conscious and on their best
behavior, the relationship was that of an inverse-U. The skilled
signers adapted the amount of BC they used to the social situation.
As one subject put it, she could turn her BC usage on and off. Even
when they were limiting their BC usage, however, the advanced
signers still used more BC during the scenarios than did the non-
signers and the beginners.
The type of signs used in BC varied according to skill level. Except
for one instance of BC which a non-signer made in imitation of the videographer
(who signs), all instances of BC by non-signers and beginners were
emblems. In contrast to this, approximately 60% of the
intermediate and advanced signers' instances of BC were non-
emblems. This indicates that, at least for the more skilled
signers, a knowledge of sign does not merely reinforce the use of
"mainstream gestures": it actually changes the type of illustrators
which subjects use.
BC serves a number of functions, which
include trying to improve the transmission of a message, strategic
negotiation, and identity marking.
6.6 Conclusion
The study of bimodal communication provides a
bridge among several different areas of study; namely, the research
on code-changing, simultaneous communication, and non-verbal
communication. It provides another piece in the puzzle which
psycholinguists can use in their efforts at determining how
languages are stored and accessed in the mind of a bilingual
person. Although the current study yields no definitive answers
to this puzzle, it does give some tantalizing hints. For example,
it was noted earlier in this chapter that certain code-switches in
the data involved the use of classifiers, which are a syntactic
category found in ASL, but not in English. This is evidence against
the hypothesis that code-switching only draws upon areas of overlap
of the grammars of the languages involved.
This research has provided evidence that both borrowing and
code-switching can occur simultaneously, in the form of BC, as well as
sequentially. By studying BC, we are able to explore the limits of the human
capacity to process and to encode two languages at the same time.
Further examination of BC might also help shed light on what
boundaries there are, if any, between language and gestures. The
current research has indicated that BC does, in fact, have the
characteristics of both "language" and "gesture." The signs
involved in BC behaved as elements of a language in that they could
be combined into multimorphemic signs, and they could be used for
many of the same purposes as sequential code- switching. The signs
behaved like illustrators in that they were smoothly integrated
into the gestural stream, and they were frequently used to comment
upon and elaborate on the speech which they accompanied.
Furthermore, there were instances of signs being partially
articulated (e.g., they were executed with a reduced movement, or
in a different place than the sign typically is). Some of these
half-articulated signs were clearly identifiable as such by both
coders. There were other instances of illustrators, however, which
the coders had difficulty deciding whether to count as signs.
These gestures appeared to be signs whose articulation had been
distorted beyond the point where the coders could determine the
original sign. Although these instances were not counted as signs
in the present research, it would be a valid topic for debate as
to whether they were signs (and hence "language") or non-signs (and
hence "non-language"). The solution to this question may well prove
to be that they are both "language" and "non-language"; i.e., that
there is no clearcut distinction between language and
gesture.
McNeill (1985:350) noted that:
The statement that gestures and speech are part of the same psychological
structure is...contrary to the assumptions of many linguistic analyses that
hold that language structures should be analyzed only in terms of
speech sounds plus grammar.
It is the author's hope that this dissertation will play a part
in dispelling such assumptions.
6.7 Limitations, and Areas for Future Research
This study is just a first step in documenting the use of BC. It still
leaves many questions unaddressed or unanswered. Several such questions have
been presented throughout this chapter, and will not be repeated
here.
The primary limitations of this study are the small
number of intermediate and advanced dyads studied, and the fact
that all these subjects were white, hearing female sign students.
It would be desirable to reproduce this research in the future with
a much larger database which would include both men and women,
hearing and deaf, who have learned ASL from a variety of sources.
The first experiment, while simulating "real life" by means of
scenarios, nevertheless involves recording subjects who knew they
were being videotaped for research purposes. Therefore, it is
entirely possible that they behaved differently than they would in
more naturalistic settings. If the law, ethical considerations,
and human subject committees would permit it, it would be useful
to videotape people, without their knowledge, conversing in natural
settings.
Each member of a pair of subjects performing
scenarios was from the same classroom in an attempt to pair signers
with approximately the same signing abilities. It would be
interesting to pair people with different signing abilities to see
how they would interact.
Finally, it would be interesting to determine more precisely the
functional uses of, and the syntactic constraints on, BC. For example, it
would be worthwhile to conduct an experiment examining the gestures of non-signers
and signers narrating the same story. Another useful experiment could
determine to what extent BC impacts upon the successful
communication of a story to viewers. Both signers and non-signers
would watch narrations of a story being related by either signers
or non-signers. They would then be asked questions to test their
recollection of the details. If the subjects scored better on the
tests for stories communicated by a signer, there would be evidence
that the different gesturing which signers use aids the viewers'
comprehension or recollection of the message. An interesting twist
on this experiment would involve a story in which someone refers,
both orally and gesturally, to the number "three." The mainstream
American gesture for "three" is nearly identical to the American
Sign Language sign for "six." It would prove fascinating to note
whether signers viewing such a gesture in the context of a spoken
narration would mis-recall the spoken number.
NOTES
{these will eventually be typed into e-version of dissertation}
bibliography
Back to my dissertation page