Register Variation in Flemish Sign Language (VGT)

The influence of register variation on signing speed, mouthings and mouth gestures and the reduction of two - handed signs.

Maarten Vandewalle Studentnumber: 01106243

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Mieke Van Herreweghe

A dissertation submitted to Ghent University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Linguistics and Literature - language combination D utch - English

Academic year: 2017 - 2018

A b stract

This thesis is the report of a research on register variation in Flemish Sign Language (VGT). The idea was to study the influence of formality on the speed of signing, the amount of mouthings and mouth gestures and the reduction of two - handed signs. By calculating those aspects for both a formal and an informal setting, I could compare the language use in two different situations. The results of this research showed that the aforementioned aspects of VGT are influenced by register variation, but no definitive definition of register variation could be given, as there was no consistent difference between the informal and formal situations.

Acknowledgments

I embarked on this journey of sign langua ge research with a few very clear goals. The first one is getting a degree. As this is my master's thesis and the very last part of my education, I am very eager to complete it and earn my diploma. The second goal of this thesis was to learn. Students writ e their thesis on subjects they are interested in and mostly they already know a good deal about it. For me, that was also the case, but sign language research is still a young discipline, and there is still so much more to learn about the Flemish Sign Lan guage. I am happy that I was able to look at a theme that interests me deeply in order to finish my education. My interest in sign languages has always been there. However, it remained a distant goal to learn the language until 2014. In 2014, I enrolled in the course organised by Fevlado Diversus VZW. I learned the language over the course of two years and though I am far from fluent, I am still enthusiastic to increase my knowledge and my competences concerning the language. In 2016, I took the class on the grammatical aspects of VGT taught by prof. dr. Mieke Van Herreweghe and I finished my bachelor's paper on the subject of negation in VGT. The choice to write this thesis on VGT was easily made. My interest in the variationist sociolinguistics is of a m ore recent date and can be attributed to prof. dr. Stef Slembrouck, who taught a class on sociolinguistics in my second year and sparked my interest, and prof. dr. Johan De Caluwe, whose classes on tussentaal and language use have made a great impression o n me.

I would like to take this opportunity to give thanks to some very important people. First of all I would like to thank my promoter, prof. dr. Mieke Van Herreweghe. She is one of the authorities on Flemish Sign Language and it has been a huge honour and an amazing opportunity to have had her as my promoter. I would like to thank her for her support and her advice. She made time for me even though her schedule is always full and she always helped me as soon as possible. She was my promoter for my bach elor's paper and choosing her as the promoter for my thesis was obvious. Professor Slembrouck and professor De Caluwe, for reasons I have already explained. Next I would like to thank my parents, without whom I would never have made it this far in my life and who have supported me in writing this thesis. Mostly they did so by reminding me the deadline was 'only' three months away. Your nagging may not have been appreciated at all times, but you guys do mean well. Lastly, and maybe

most importantly, Sien: yo u are my muse, my guardian angel and the reason I continued writing every day. Without you, I would be nowhere. Thank you. For everything!

Index Abstract ...... 3 Acknowledgments ...... 5 Index ...... 7 List of terms ...... 8 1. Introduction ...... 9 2. Flemish Sign Language (Vlaamse Gebarentaal or VGT) ...... 11 2.1. VGT as a natural language ...... 12 2. 2. The use of the mouth in VGT ...... 14 2.3. Variation in VGT ...... 15 3. Register variation ...... 21 3.1. The five styles according to Joos (1967) ...... 21 4. Earlier studies ...... 25 4.1. Research on sign languages in general ...... 25 4.2. Research on register in sign languages ...... 27 4.3. Research on register variation in VGT ...... 28 5. The study ...... 31 5.1. Corpus VGT ...... 32 5.2. Selection of the material ...... 33 5.3. Methods ...... 35 6. Results ...... 37 6.1. Signing speed ...... 37 6.2. Mouthings and mouth gestures ...... 38 6.3. Reduction of two - handed signs ...... 39 7. Discussion ...... 41 7.1. Problems during the research ...... 41 7.2. Signing speed ...... 43 7.3. Mouthings and mouth gestures ...... 47 7.4. Reduction of two - handed signs ...... 52 7.5. General discussion ...... 53 8. Further research ...... 57 9. Conclusion ...... 61 10. Bibliography ...... 63 11. Annex ...... 67 7

Word Count: 20656

List of terms

ASL: American Sign Language BSL: British Sign Language Fevlado: Federatie van de Vlaamse Dovenverenigingen or Federation of the Flemish deaf organisations NmG: Nederlands met Gebaren or Signed Dutch Tussentaal: Literaly 'in - between - language', language used by (young) Flemish Dutch speakers (De Caluwe, 2009). VGT: V laamse Gebarentaal or Flemish Sign Language

1. Introduction

Register variation has been described in many languages and according to Biber (1995) it is present in every language . In a fairly recent research branch, register variation has been discovered in American Sign Language (ASL) (Zimmer, 1989 and Quinto - Pozos and Mehta, 2010) and British Sign Language (BSL) ( Sutton - Spence and Woll, 1999 and Stone, 2011) as well. It is clear that register variation is something that is present in most natu ral languages. It only stands to reason that if register variation can be found in ASL , BSL and other natural languages, there should be variation in the Flemish Sign Language (Vlaamse Gebarentaal or VGT) as well. There is however no recent in depth research on this specific topic. Therefore, the aim of this thesis is to figure out whether or not there is register variation in VGT and if so, how this variation manifest s itself. To do so, we will take a closer look at three aspects of VGT : the speed o f signing, the mouthings and mouth gestures and the reduction of two - handed signs. Therefore the research question for this thesis will be as follows: are the speed of signing, the use of mouthings and mouth gestures and the reduction of two - handed signs i nfluenced by the formality of the situation?

Variation ist sociolinguistics and sign linguistics are both fairly recent fields of study. The first modern linguistic study on sign language dates back only to 1960, with the publication of the work on ASL by William Stokoe. Stokoe's work did inspire more research on ASL in the 1970s and by the 1980s interest in sign language research had also reached Europe. However, i t was only in the early 1990s that the first real research on VGT started and research and re searchers on sign language are still quite scarce (Vermeerbergen, 2006). The start of variationist sociolinguistics comes a little later, in 1963, with the presentation of Labov's first sociolinguistic work. This branch of linguistics might be called the y ounger brother of dialectology, the research of geographical variation in languages, which dates back to the late 1800s (Chambers, 2002). The research on social v ariation in language use has boomed and with numerous publications, it is currently not unusua l to be a sociolinguist.

If Biber's statement that there is variation in every language is correct , it is only logical that the fields of sign linguistics and variationist sociolinguistics should have found each other at some point. As I will show later i n this thesis, these fields of study have found each other but research is still scarce. Especially the research on VGT is only beginning to touch the field

of register variation. I believe therefore that this thesis is an opportunity to take a first gande r at the possible register variation in VGT.

In this thesis, I will first give a brief introduction on VGT and a few of its characteristics, focusing on those that will be relevant in the research itself. In chapter 2.2 I will focus on mouthings and mout h gestures. In chapter 2.3 I will elaborate on variation in VGT, more specifically on regional variation and comment on the possibility of a standard VGT. Next, I will take a closer look at register variation in general, giving an outline of the most impor tant terms and definitions. In the following chapter I will give an overview of the (recent) research that has been done on the subject, first shortly on sign languages in general, next on register variation in sign languages, followed by the research do ne on register variation in VGT specifically. In chapter 5 I will introduce my own research. The data I used originates from the Corpus VGT, an online corpus containing video footage of VGT users in conversation with each other. In chapter 5.1 a brief ex planation on the Corpus VGT will be given. Chapter 5.2 elaborates on the selection of the materials and in 5.3 I will explain my methods. Chapter 6 will contain the results of my research and in chapter 7 I will discuss my findings. In chapter 8 I will mak e a few suggestions for future research. Finally, I will end with my conclusion.

2. Flemish Sign Language (Vlaamse Gebarentaal or VGT)

Flemish Sign Language ( Vlaamse Gebarentaal or VGT) is the visual and gestural language used in Flanders, the northern part of Belgium. It is estimated by Van Herreweghe and Vermeerbergen (2012) that there are about 6000 deaf people who use VGT as their primary form of communication. They also estimate d that another 7000 people (interpreters, family,...) know and use the language. The term Vlaamse Gebarentaal has been in use since the year 2000 (Demey, 2012). Originally the term Belgische Gebarentaal (Bel gian Sign Language) was used. F ilip Lon c ke later coined the term Vlaams - Belgische Gebarentaal (Flemish - Belgian Sign Language). According to Demey, there were two reasons for this change (2012). On the one hand, there are quite a lot of similarities between Flemish and Wallonian (Wallonia, the southern ha lf of Belgium) Sign Language , which is an argument for keeping the 'Belgian' part in the name. On the other hand, there was no clear evidence that the two sign languages could be considered as the same language, thus the adjective 'Flemish' was added. It w as only in the year 2000 that the Deaf community in Flanders themselves had a discussion on what their language should be called. At a meeting of deaf people with the Flemish federation of deaf organisations (Fevlado 1 ), it was decided that the sign languag e used in Flanders would be called Vlaamse Gebarentaal or VGT for short.

The origins of VGT can be found in the schools for the deaf in Flanders. In the second half of the 18th century, education for deaf people grew in popularity and large amounts of de af people came into contact with each other at these (boarding)schools (Van Herreweghe & Vandemeulebroucke, 2016). Sign language developed at these schools, as 90 percent of deaf children have hearing parents , making it rare that deaf children learn sign language from their parents (Van Herreweghe & Vandemeulebroucke, 2016). At first, signing was encouraged at the schools for the deaf, as many schools followed the example of Abbé Charles - Michel de l'Epée (Leeson, 2006). He founded the very first school for the deaf in Paris and used a system of signs he invented to teach his students French. Students of de l'Epée and teachers from other schools used de l'Epée's system and introduced his methods in Belgium (Schermer & Vermeerbergen, 2004).

1 Fevlado has been renamed to Doof Vlaanderen on october first, 2017 (www.fevlado.be;www.doof.vlaanderen). 11

2.1. VGT as a nat ural language

Over the years, many misconceptions on sign languages have found their way into society. One very common misconception is that sign languages are not in fact natural languages like English or Dutch, but were invented at some point to help th ose who were unable to communicate via spoken languages ( Vermeerbergen, 2006). Van Herreweghe and Vermeerbergen (2012) do define VGT as a language . Of course, such a definition asks for a clear definition of what a language actually is and that definitio n is not easily made. What can be done is discuss a few charac teristics of what a language is and try to apply these characteristics to VGT. A first characteristic of a natural language is the fact that they appeared and developed over time and that they were not invented. This is also the case with sign languages. Sign languages were not invented, but came into existence due t o contact between deaf people. The need for communication was quickly followed by the tools needed for that communication (Van Herr eweghe & Vermeerbergen, 2012). So contrary to what some people might still believe, sign languages were not invented like for instance Esperanto. This fact does bring up an important issue. There is in fact a system in Flanders that us es signs to communica te which is not a natural language. It is called Nederlands met Gebaren or Signed Du tch and it is not a sign language but a sign system. This system is mainly used in the education of children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Outside of the classrooms, VGT is the most commonly used language (Van Herreweghe, 1998). More information on Signed Dutch can be found in chapter 2.3.1.2 .

A second characteristic that defines a language is the ability to communicate about all topics. This aspect of language can also be found in VGT and other sign languages. People often think that sign languages are more limited than spoken languages, but VGT has quite an extensive lexicon. It is true that sometimes one sign is used to mean different things, but on the other hand ther e are also many different signs for the same word in Dutch. Think for example of the Dutch word openen (to open), which has many signs, depending on what object exactly needs to be opened (Vermeerbergen, 2001). It is perfectly possible to talk about any p ossible subject in sign languages. There is a higher degree of iconicity in sign languages and the origin and meaning of many signs can easily be discerned, but there are certainly signs for abstract concepts as well. Love, faith, trust,... all these concepts have corresponding signs (Vermeerbergen, 2001). 12

There are however still some gaps in the lexicon, some concepts that do not have a sign in VGT. What is a gap and what is not, may be hard to define, as signers might use polycomponential constructions, which are not part of the frozen lexicon (Van Herreweghe & Vermeerbergen, 2004) . The frozen lexicon is that which som e people might see as the lexicon: signs with a stable form and a stable meaning. This is contrary to the productive lexicon, which contains signs that are not lexicalised. These signs are 'created' by making new combinations of phonomorphemes, often using classifiers (Johnston & Schembri, 1999). I will use gap in the same meaning as Van Herreweghe and Vermeerbergen (2004), namely, a concept that VGT users do not know how to express. Mostly, these are concepts from specialised branches, like chemistry. Ther e are no signs for these concepts as there has been no need for them yet. Just like in other natural languages, words or signs will be invented or developed to fit a certain concept when the need for one arises, for instance, when concepts of chemistry bec ome a part of the daily life of VGT users. There have already been attempts at filling in some of the gaps in the VGT lexicon. In 2001, a project was started to fill in a few gaps in the fields of math, geography and history . Signs were invented, borrowed or constructed and made accessible on the internet via http://gebaren.ugent.be (Van Herreweghe & Vermeerbergen, 2004).

A third aspect of languages is the arbitrariness of linguistic components. In spoken languages, the link between a linguistic entity an d the concept in the real world is completely arbitrary: there is no real reason why we call a tree a tree. Onomatopoeias are an exception to this rule. In sign languages, the deg ree of iconicity is much higher, but that does not mean VGT is completely ico nic. Iconicity is present in many lexical ite ms but also in a few morfo - syntactic constructions in VGT (Demey, 2012). An example of lexical iconicity can be found in the sign KOE 2 (cow), which is a clear reference to the horns of a cow (Vermeerbergen, 2001 ). Iconicity in morfo - syntactic constructions can be found in constructed action, where one person plays the part of two or more characters in a story. Instead of always signing 'He says' or 'She says', the signer moves his or her body to show a shift in w ho did or said something (Van Herreweghe, 1998). On the other hand, there are also signs that are arbitrary, like LIEFDE (love), HOOP (hope) or VERTROUWEN (trust) (Vermeerbergen, 2001; Van Herreweghe & Vermeerbergen, 2012).

2 Writing down signs in VGT in this thesis will be done by using glosses (cf chapter 4.1) . 13

Languages are also made up of s mall building blocks. In spoken languages, those building blocks are called phonemes. In VGT (and other sign languages), these building blocks exist as well. Signs can be split up in four (or five) parameters . The first one is the shape of the hand: a fist , an open hand, an extended index finger,... The second parameter is the orientation of the hand. This parameter describes in which direction fingers, palm or other parts of the hand are pointing. A third parameter is the place of articulation: where is th e sign formed? In front of the chest, against the cheek,...? The fourth parameter is the movement of the hand. A completely different sign may be produced just by changing one of these parameters , just as the meaning of a word will be changed by replacing one phoneme with another (Vermeerbergen, 2001). A possible fifth parameter has been described and that is the position of the mouth. In chapter 2.2 I will elaborate more on this possible parameter . For now it suffices to say that there is still some debate on whether or not the position of the mouth should even be considered as part of sign language s (Crasborn, Van Der Kooij, Waters, Woll , & Mesch , 2008). Therefore I describe the use of the mouth as a possible fifth parameter, until a consensus on the topic has been reached.

Finally, any language also has 'rules' to bind these building blocks together into meaningful sentences. Just as in spoken languages , there are certain combinations of sign parameters that do not fit together. Mostly, signers will claim that these feel unnatural, just as certain combinations of phonemes in spoken languages sound unnatural (Van Herreweghe, 1998). VGT also has a grammar, which I will not look at further in this thesis. For the most recent facts on the grammar of the Flemish Sign Language, I advise Vermeerbergen's Grammaticale aspecten van de Vlaams - Belgische Gebarentaal (2001) .

In conclusion, it is safe to say that VGT, though using a different modality than spoken languages, is in fact a natural language.

2.2. The use of the mouth in VGT

Those who have seen VGT in use might have noticed that the mouth is also used, together with the hands and the rest of the body. Verm eerbergen and Salaets (2016) mention that some of these mouth movements correspond with words from spoken languages. There are also others that do not correspond with words. This seems to be similar in all sign languages and there has been a lot of researc h on it . For instance in Schermer and Vermeerbergen (2004) it is mentioned that these mouth actions are present in both NGT 14

(Nederlandse Gebarentaal or Dutch Sign Language) and VGT. Sutton - Spence and Day did research on mouth actions in BSL (2001) and Rain o (2001) worked on the same theme in Finish Sign Language. In 1998, there was a workshop on these mouth movements in European sign language and those who took part generally agreed on two types of mouth action: A ) those that are based on wo rds from a spok en language and B ) those that are formed within the sign language itself. It was only later that the terms mouthings (for A) and mouth gestures (for B) were widely adopted (Crasborn, Van Der Kooij, Waters, Woll , & Mesch , 2008) . There has been quite a lot of debate among scholars about the status of mouthings in sign languages. On the one hand, there are those who believe mouthings are a part of sign languages. They see mouthings as borrowed items from spoken languages that are now completely integrated in the sign languages. On the other hand, there are scholars who believe that mouthings are just coincidental. They argue that mouthings are code mixing and should not be seen as part of any sign language (Crasborn, Van Der Kooij, Waters, Woll , & Mesch , 2008 ). It is not my intention to join in this discussion, I will simply study the influence of formality on mouthings and mouth gestures.

It is important to note that VGT signers consider mouth actions as an important part of understandable VGT. In the research done by Van Herreweghe and Vandemeulebroucke (2016) where the attitudes of VGT users on the language use of interpreters on the national news were questioned, one of the comments the informants made was that a certain interpreter used t oo few mout h action s. Van Herreweghe and Vandemeulebroucke attribute this to the need for extra quality and a language that is universally understandable (2016). In their research, the distinction between mouthings and mouth gestures is not made, but it can be deduce d that mouth actions are an important part in VGT.

2.3. Variation in VGT

In the study of VGT, researchers have found there is no standard variety of VGT. There are however different regional variations of the language. Vanhecke and De Weerdt in Van Herrew eghe and Vermeerbergen (2004) claim there are five regiolects, all originating from one of the five schools for the deaf in Flanders. These schools are situated in the five Flemish provinces and the regiolects are named after these provinces: West - Flanders , East - Flanders, Antwerp, Flemish Brabant and Limburg. Van Herreweghe (1998) also points out the

fact that there is intraregional variation in the se regiolects. She explains the existence of the intraregional variation by pointing out that schools for the deaf were separate for girls and boys, thus leading to a female and a male variety. Van Herreweghe also mentions the fact that these varieties no longer exist in their pure form. Contact between deaf people from different regions and different genders led to the mixture of the regiolects (Van Herreweghe, 1998). The influence of interregional contacts on VGT has been studied by Vanhecke and De Weerdt (2004). They found that the three central regiolects (Oost - Vlaams, Antwerps and Vlaams - Brabants) have influ enced each other the most. The outer regiolects of Limburg and West - Vlaanderen mainly influence and are mainly influenced by their neighbouring regiolects. This process, according to Vanhecke and De Weerdt (2004) , will eventually lead to a spontaneous stan dardisation of VGT. It is important to remember that according to Demey (2012) the differences between the regiolects are mainly lexical and that 72.3% of all signs are used in all regions. This surely confirms that VGT is one language, despite its varia tions. However, the regiolects exist and should be t aken into consideration, certainly when ta lking about register variation.

2.3.1. Towards a standard VGT?

A standard VGT could easily serve as a formal variety of VGT, as is the case in for example Dutch, where the standard Dutch (Algemeen Nederlands) is considered the highest and most formal form (Geeraerts, 2001). But, a s mentioned above, there is no standard variety of VGT. To make such a grand claim, it is important to have a clear definition of what a 'standard variety' actually is. Auer (2011) defines a standard variety as follows: ' (a) a standard variety is a common language, i.e. one which (ideally) shows no geographical variation in the territory in which it is used; (b) a standard variety is an H - variety, i.e. it has overt prestige and is used in situations which require a formal way of speaking (if a spoken standard exists at all) as well as in writing; and (c) a standard variety is codified, i.e. ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ plays an important role in the way in which speakers orient towards it. ' (Auer, 2011: 486) Van Herreweghe and Vandemeulebroucke (2016) show that this definition is hard to apply to VGT. Firstly, they argue that VGT only has a limited function in society and is still seen as a lang uage for those who are part of a select club. It is almost never used in administration and other day - to - day events. Secondly, they argue that VGT is (mostly) unwritten. Van Herreweghe and Vermeerbergen (2012) point out the fact that there is such a thing as

SignWriting, a written form of signs. However, this written language is not yet used by many people (Van Herreweghe & Vermeerbergen, 2012). This would mean that a standardised VGT will not be able to spread through written texts. However, Van Herreweghe and Vandemeulebroucke believe that video might be able to take the place of written language in the VGT community (2016). Lastly, they also point out the fact that there is no prestigious regiolect that can serve as a norm for the others, as is the case i n Dutch. Because Auer's definition is mostly inapplicable, Van Herreweghe and Vandemeulebroucke (2016) asked VGT users how they saw standardisation of VGT. They found that generally speaking, five features are essential for a standard variety of VGT. 1. Lexical homogeneity: every concept has only one sign. 2. Codification of the norm in dictionaries and grammar books. 3. Completeness of the language: a standard VG T should have a sign for every possible concept. 4. Si gns should be logical and not overly co mplex. 5. Neutrality: standard VGT has to be neutral, no regional variety should be preferred over another.

This study also discovered that VGT users believe that VGT is slowly standardising on its own. Van Herreweghe and Vandemeulebroucke (2016) point o ut the fact that lexical diversity is declining and that three of their informants called this process standardisation . Also the fourth feature of this standard VGT is applied in VGT use according to the informants. They claim illogical and overly complex signs do not belong in a standard VGT and they prefer more iconic signs (Van Herreweghe & Vandemeulebroucke, 2016).

Van Herreweghe and Vandemeulebroucke (2016) also questioned the informants about their attitudes concerning a standard VGT. One question c oncerned the need for a language that all VGT users can understand and the answer to that question is ambiguous. On the one hand, the informants believe they are capable of understanding each other , no matter which variety they use , using the context to de termine the meaning of signs they do not know. On the other hand, the informants also state that certain regiolects are less understandable than others, referring to the regiolect of Limburg as hardest to understand (all informants were from Oost - Vlaandere n or West - Vlaanderen ). The informants also believe that their own ( West - Vlaams ) regiolect would be unsuitable as the base for a standard VGT, as a few of their signs are too illogical. 17

Another question Van Herreweghe and Vandemeulebroucke (2016) have asked was whether or not there is need for a norm in standard VGT, with the implication that there is a right and a wrong use of VGT. The answer is not really straightforward, as VGT users are not sure whether their feeling of what is right or wrong in VGT is actually correct. The informants do want a norm and look at linguists to provide that norm. They believe that this norm should be represented in vocabularies and grammar books. These norms should, according to the informants, be used to teach hearing p eople VGT (Van Herreweghe & Vandemeulebroucke, 2016). On the other hand, Van Herreweg he and Vandemeulebroucke (2016) found that VGT users are often negative towards a standard VGT for multiple reasons. First of all, the informants feared that they would have troubles identifying with a standard VGT. For most of them, a standard VGT would feel too much like a second language, and they would feel ill at ease with the language. Some informants thought they would not be able to communicate in depth because th e standard VGT would feel unnatural (Van Herreweghe and Vandemeulebroucke, 2016). Secondly, it seems that the opinions on a standard VGT are influenced by previous experiences with language standards that have been imposed on VGT users. Two events are of importance. On the one hand, there w as the congress in Milan in 1880 . On the other hand there was the development of NmG (" Nederlands met G ebaren" or Signed Dutch). Both of these events influenced deaf people to believe that an imposed standard would comp romise their regional variety (Van Herreweghe and Vandemeulebroucke, 2016). Both events are elaborated on below.

2.3.1.1. The congress of Milan

The congress of Milan , as the second 'International congress on education for the deaf' is often called, was a congress held in 1880, where hearing teachers who thaught at schools for the deaf met and argued about which methods to use in their teaching (Moores, 2010; Leeson, 2006) . The two contending methods were the French method as developed by De l'Epée ( a s mentioned above in chapter 2 ) and the oral approach, which was developed originally by Samuel Heinicke (Leeson, 2006). The goal of the oral method was to teach deaf people to speak in order to help them adjust to the hearing society. The oral approach wa s favoured at the congress and internationally applied (Leeson, 2006) . The most important resolutions that were passed at the congress read as follows:

" (1) given the incontestable superiority of speech over signs in restoring deaf - mutes to society, an d in giving them a more perfect knowledge of language that the oral method ought to be preferred to signs; and (2) considering that the simultaneous use of speech and signs has the disadvantage of injuring speech, lipreading, and pre - cision of ideas, that the pure oral method ought to be preferred. " (Moores, 2010: 309).

Deaf teachers were removed from schools and sign languages were no longer allowed in class or on the playground at school . Those who used signs or could not speak were considered retar ded (Leeson, 2006).

2.3.1.2. Nederlands met G ebaren or Signed D utch

In the 1970s, the deaf community in Flanders decided to step away from the oral method and promote sign language. Interest for sign languages had risen internationally in those years, as had the interest in the use of signs in education in Flanders (Van Herreweghe & Vermeerbergen, 2004). Of great influence was the Total Communication philosophy as coined by Holcomb i n 1967 (Hawkins & Brawner, 1997). This philosophy stated that it was necessary for the teacher to change his way of communication to best fit the needs of the child. That might be oral, manual, written or a combination of these three (Hawkins & Brawner, 19 97). One school in Flanders adopted this philosophy in 1979, while the other schools were still strictly oral. Together with the Flemish deaf community, they promoted the use of signs for the first time since 1880. However, the deaf community did not promo te the natural VGT but implemented a sign system called Nederlands met Gebaren (NmG) or Signed Dutch . This system was a word - for - word 'translation' of Dutch into signs, with 14 morphological markers to indicate for instance the tenses (Van Herreweghe & Ver meerbergen, 2004). According to Van Herreweghe and Vermeerbergen (2004), this system might have been chosen because of its unified lexicon and good grammar, as many people in the deaf communi ty still considered VGT as a primitive language. It also might ha ve been chosen because it met with less opposition from the hearing community. Another decision made to promote signs was to unify the lexicon. A committee of sign l anguage users came together to debate on which signs they would promote. In 1995, this led to the publication of a dictionary containing both regional and invented signs, though it was not mentioned which signs originated where (Van Herreweghe & Vermeerbergen, 2004). Later, awareness of VGT as a complete language grew and Signed Dutch was

even tually officially rejected by Fevlado (the federation for the Flemish deaf organisations ) in 1997. It appears that NmG was considered too unnatural (Van Herreweghe & Vermeerbergen, 2004).

2.3.1.3. Conclusion

Van Herreweghe and Vandemeulebroucke (2016) co nclude that the standardisation process is something VGT users are open to. According to their research, VGT users want a standard language, mostly as a communication device that is universally understandable in Flanders. The informants also believed that a standard VGT would be a norm everyone could live up to and that in turn would stop the degradation of the lexicon. The standardisation of VGT is in progress, as Van Herreweghe and Vandemeulebroucke showed (2016). They refer back to the four steps of sta ndardisation that Haugen (1966,1972) proposed: (1) Selection of norm; (2) codification of form; (3) elaboration of function; (4) acceptance by the community. Van Herreweghe and Vandemeulebroucke (2016) found that the VGT users want a polycentric selection of norm, a norm that would be truly neutral, without favouring one regional variety over another. Step 2 and 3 are ongoing but the biggest hurdle might be step 4. The VGT users are open to a standard VGT, but they would not see it as a H - variety in contras t with their own regional variety. The contrast would rather be one of identity versus understanding each other, with Dutch as the H - variety , rather than any form of VGT (Van Herreweghe & Vandemeulebroucke, 2016). In conclusion, one might say that a standard VGT is possible, but that it does not yet exist. It is also important to remember that the VGT users see a standard VGT not as an H - variety, but rather as a tool to communicate with deaf people wh o do not share their regiolect.

3. Register v ariation

Variation can be found in all human languages (Biber, 1995). People will often change how they say something, depending on different non - linguistic factors. The relationship with the recipient, the location, the situation and many o ther factors l ead people to choose different grammar, punctuation or lexicon (Biber, 1995). Variation within a language can also occur in the form of dialects. Biber (1995) speaks of two types of dialects: the geographic dialects, used by people living in the same area, and social dialects, spoken by people in the same demographical group (women versus men, higher class versus lower class,...). The focus in this research paper will be on register or style variation and not on any o ther form of dialect . For more informati on on geographical dialects in VGT, I would advise Van Herrewegh e and Vandemeulebroucke (2016) and Vanhecke and De Weerdt (2004). Many definitions of the term register can be found and they range from very narrow to quite wide. Stone calls register "[...] a linguistic outcome of a particular social situation" (2011: 121) and Chambers claims, on the subject of variations in everyday speech, that these variations are "[...] linguistically insignificant but socially significant." (2002: 3). Both these authors and their definitions point out that register is a sociolinguistic term, meaning that two utterances can have the same grammatical meaning, but carry a different social meaning (Chambers, 2002). This social meaning is recognised by almost all speakers of t he language that is used and even in such a way that many people have tried to argue that there is a rational base for the perceived superiority of a certain variety (Chambers, 2002). None have successfully proven that such a base exists, as higher or lowe r register is as much an arbitrary social construct as is for instance shaking each other's right hand upon meeting. But being arbitrary does not mean it is not without its consequences. People are judged socially on their language use and that seems to be accepted as normal in m any societies (Chambers, 2001).

3.1. The five styles according to Joos (1967)

According to Joos, there are five different styles in English language use (1967). From more to less formal, he distinguishes the following: frozen, for mal, consultative, casual and intimate. Joos poses that the use of a certain style in a certain situation is by no means obligated. Shifting styles can occur at any point in a conversation, even in the middle of a sentence. Normally, these shifts happen between neighbouring styles and shifting two or more

'steps' on this ladder is considered anti - social (Joos, 1967) . Though Joos has written quite a lot on the five styles, they will not be discussed in minute detail here. They will be summarised in order to define a clear distinction between the formal and informal variation I will try to discern in VGT.

3.1.1. Consultative style

Joos (1967) talks of two defining features for the consultative style. On the one hand, the speaker gives information, as suming the addressee would not understand him without it. On the other hand, the addressee is continuously participating in the conversation. J oos believes this is the most neutral style, the one people will use when meeting strangers.

3.1.2. Casual style

Using t he consultative style is, acc ording to Joos, too much effort on a long term basis. After meeting someone, people will look for commonalities to form a social group. When this is achieved, people will turn to the casual style, a style that is reser ved for friends and acquaintances. The defining features are ellipsis and slang. This means on the one hand that certain information is not expressed by the speaker, as he assumes the addressee is familiar with it. On the other hand, slang, in a general me aning of the word, is used to identify the addressee as an insider, as it is a piece of language that not everyone will understand (Joos, 1967).

3.1.3. Intimate style

In the intimate style, there is no more place for public information. Using extraction a nd jargon, the speaker does not convey anything that would be understandable in the other styles. This style is mostly used in small groups (two people, generally speaking) and is used to convey feelings, specified or not, which the addressee alone will un derstand (Joos, 1967).

3.1.4. Formal style

The most important function of formal style is to inform. In consultative style this is also the case, but in formal style there is no longer a possibility for the addressee to reply. The addressee (mostly in larger groups) participates no longer and is fo rced to wait for permission to speak. The speaker is affected by this as well, mostly leaving out any personal forms ('I', 22

'Me', 'Mine',...). The ellipsis that is characteristic for the more informal styles is no longer acceptable: the speaker ' s goal is to inform and all information must be given to ensure the addressee understands the speaker . Detachment and cohesion are therefore the obvious characteristics of the formal style. The speaker detaches himself from the audience and makes the text as coherent as possible, in order to make it understandable to the entire group of addressees . (Joos, 1967).

3.1.5. Frozen style

The frozen style seems to be an extreme version of the formal style. It is there to inform, even to educate, but does so entirely on its o wn . The addressee is a stranger and he or she must remain a stranger , without any means of interaction . The frozen style has lost every bit of intonation and is usually reserved for written communication. It offers a distance, as the addressee can be kilom etres away. It also offers something that no other style offers: the ability to reread. Joos does not mean to physically reread something but to rethink the meaning of the utterance, even beyond what the author of the text originally intended (Joos, 1967).

4. Earlier studies

4.1. Research on sign languages in general

Sign languages have been considered limited an d primitive at best in the past and even today there are still plenty of misconceptions about these languages. The most common ones are that sign language was invented as an aid for the deaf and that sign languages are just a gestural 'translation' of the corresponding language (Vermeerbergen, 2006). As a result of these notions of inferiority, modern linguistic research on sign languages came quite late. The first (modern) linguistic study of a sign language was done by Dutch linguist Tervoort in his doctoral dissertation in 1953. However, due to lack of interest from other parties, Tervoort's study remained unpublished and unknown for a long t ime . It is only seven years later, in 1960, that interest for sign language research actually became significant , sparked by the publication of William Stokoe's Sign Language Structure (Vermeerbergen, 2006). William Stokoe was an American linguist and a ch airman for the department of English at the Gallaudet school for the deaf (Landar, 1961). His research stated that signs are divisible into smaller components, just as words in spoken languages are (Vermeerbergen, 2006). This statement got a lot of attenti on and led to more interest in signs and sign languages. In the 1970s the number of studies on ASL (American Sign Language) rose and by the late 1970s and early 1980s, the trend was taken over in other countries as well (Vermeerbergen, 2006). Research on sign languages only started quite late. This is mostly due to the fact that most people did not consider sign languages to be real languages (Vermeerbergen, 2006). A lot of the early research therefore focused on the similarities between sign languages an d spoken languages, thus legitimizing their research as 'proper linguistics' (Vermeerbergen, 2006). Karlsson (1984) differentiated between two views. On the one hand, there is the 'oral language compatibility view'. This is the view that believes that sign language s have the same basic structure as spoken languages . That would imply that the linguistic concepts developed for spoken languages are compatible with sign languages as well. On the other hand, there is the 'sign language differential view'. This v iew is based on the idea that the structure of sign languages is unique and that analogies with spoken languages are not the starting point for the research of a sign language (Karlsson, 1984). Vermeerbergen believes that the 'oral language compatibility view' was the dominant one in the eighties (2006). Especially in Europe, where sign linguists were also involved in language planning and political actions to improve the status of sign languages, this view became very dominant . It was only later, in the late 1980s 25

and early 1990s, that more attention was paid to the uniqueness of sign languages (Vermeerbergen, 2006).

The research on VGT specifically came even more recently. As mentioned above, sign language research only became imp ortant in Europe in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but the first (large scale) study on the grammatical structure of VGT dates back only to 1990. Earlier studies were on a much smaller scale or focused more on sociolinguistic themes such as the use of ges tural communication in education (Vermeerbergen & Van Herreweghe, 2012). Even today, research on VGT is rather scarce. Vermeerbergen (2001;2006) points out the fact that there are very few researchers active who study VGT. Another reason why there is so li ttle research , or at least why it started so late, is the fact that very few researchers have truly mastered VGT and even fewer use VGT as thei r primary language (Vermeerbergen, 2006) . The lack of research can also be attributed to the status of VGT in F landers. As Vermeerbergen (2006) pointed out, VGT has been an underground language for quite a long time. Ever since the Congress of Milan banned signs from the classrooms (as mentioned above), sign languages have developed under the radar, but have always b een seen, even by those who use sign language daily, as inferior to spoken languages. Many VGT users still choose for a monolingual approach when raising their hearing children, choosing Dutch (supported by NmG) over VGT (Vermeerbergen, 2006). It was no t until 1997 that Fevlado chose to promote VGT instead of NmG and only in 2006 that the Flemish parliament recognised VGT as a n official cultural minority language ( Van Herreweghe & Vermeerbergen, 2004;2012). This low status certainly influenced the (dis)i nterest of researchers and the Flemish society as a whole in VGT. Research on VGT is also scarce because collecting data is quite difficult. Sign language is a visual language and has no widely used written form. There are ways of writing down sign langu ages (using glosses 3 or SignWriting) but those are complex, often incomplete and very time consuming (Van Herreweghe & Vermeerbergen, 2012). Observation of VGT (and other sign languages) has to be done by live observations or by video images. Collecting th at data would be very hard and time consuming. A corpus with video footage was finished in 2015, but before that time, most research was done us ing small groups of informants.

3 Glosses are renderings of the meaning of a sign by writing the corresponding word in the chosen oral language in capital letters (Vermeerbergen, 2006). 26

Those small research samples led to certain results, but those results might be contested, as smaller samples are less representative of the entire group of deaf people.

4.2. Research on register in sign languages

One of the first published works on register in sign languages was the work by Zimmer (1989). She discussed the variation that occurs in ASL as a result of setting or topic. She compared the language use by one person in three different settings: a formal lecture, an interview on television and an informal conversation.

Quinto - Pozos and Mehta (2010) used Zimmers research and built on it. They studied the use of mimetic gestural components and their link with register in American Sign Language. They asked two deaf teachers to present a text (originally in written English) in ASL to three different audiences in three different settings. The text included some passages that would likely cause the participants to use constructed action, the use of the position ing of the body to enact an event or a persona. They concluded that constructed action was more emphatic and more overt when signing in a school setting for children (Quinto - Pozos & Mehta, 2010). As the focus in this thesis will not be on constructed actio n, I will not elaborate further on this study.

Another important researcher on register in American Sign Language is Jack Hoza. His work (2007) is mostly on politeness. Hoza went looking for strategies used by ASL users to be less direct and therefore mor e polite. He found that mostly non manual modifiers (i.e. facial expressions or movements of the body) are used in an attempt to hedge often blunt requests, refusals or other utterances (Hoza, 2007). In British Sign Language (BSL) register variation has a lso been described. Important research has been done by Sutton - Spence and Woll (1999) and Stone (2011). The findings of Sutton - Spence and Woll (1999) state (summarised here ) that more casual BSL can be recognised by (among others) the following aspects : A larger signing space. Less fingerspelling. More Nonmanual features. Less influence from spoken English. More idiomatic signs. More creative metaphors. 27

Reduction of two - handed signs to one - handed signs. More gestures are used. Stone (2011) also rese arched the speed of the signing, measuring the number of signs and dividing that number by the amount of time used to utter these signs. He found that the speed of signing was constant in the informal setting but increased during a formal presentation. The re is a slight inconsistency in his results, as the speed of signing in the formal setting at one point was greater than in the informal setting, but the averages say that in in formal settings the speed is higher than in formal settings. The averages in St one's research concur with the findings in Sutton - Spence and Woll's (1999) research (faster signing in informal settings). However, Stone mentions that the presentation (formal setting) was given to a hearing audience and that his results might have been i nfluenced by the signers attitude towards the audience.

4.3. Research on register variation in VGT

Research on VGT on ly started quite late (cf. chapter 4.1 ) and studies on VGT in general are a rare commodity. Logically, the amount of research done on reg ister variation should be equally small. Unfortunately, that assumption seems to be correct. Research on variation in VGT has mostly been done on regional variation ( Vanhecke & De Weerdt, 2004). Vanhecke and De Weerdt (2004) did also find intraregional var iation but they do not give an explanation as to why this intraregional variation exists. They do mention that "... gender, age, register, and so on are important variables that may account for the differences among the sign variants" (Vanhecke & Deweerdt, 2004: 33). Van Herreweghe and Vermeerbergen (2004) already claim that due to the use of separated schools for boys or girls, gender is at least one of the causes of intraregional variation. They did not study register variation at that time .

There has been some research where register has come up. In Van Herreweghe and Vermeerbergen (2004) , informants said that they felt that the signs from NmG (those learned by their children at school) are better than those they use themselves (original VGT signs). The authors felt that this implied a perceived high and low variety, consistent with the attitudes from many deaf communities, where the language use that is closer to spoken language is perceived as higher than the natural sign language (Van Herre weghe & Vermeerbergen, 2004). Invented signs from NmG were therefore adopted in VGT, but when

the list of signs for NmG was compiled, with a mixture of signs taken from VGT and invented signs, nobody took notes of which signs originated where. Other exampl es are given and it does seem that the natural sign language (VGT) had a very low status, causing an immediate impact from lexicons and grammar books that were published. Thus, Van Herreweghe and Vermeerbergen (2004) say that VGT users do look at sign ling uists to form a certain norm, which they would consider a higher, more correct form of VGT. The researchers even provide examples where VGT users apply what they consider to be 'better VGT'. There is however no in depth research to when VGT users use these 'high' or 'low' forms or even what these forms actually look like. Another study that mentions register variation in VGT is the study by Van Herreweghe and Vandemeulebroucke (2016) that is already mentioned above. In the study, the researchers asked info rmants whether or not they feel the need for a standard VGT for use in the public domain or as a more formal register. Most of the informants answered that they already adjust their language in more formal situations. Mostly, they slow down their signing a nd try to articulate their signs more clearly. There is also a tendency to use easier constructions and less signs that are considered typical for a certain region. This is consistent with another topic: what would a standard language be used for in the VG T community? Informants said that they would use standard VGT for informal contacts with VGT users from a different region. The logical conclusion is that understanding one another is more important than the type of meeting. One of the informants even clai med that VGT users have no need for register, as the community is a small o ne with few social differences (Van Herreweghe & Vandemeulebroucke, 2016). This is an important opinion to keep in mind while studying register variation. Will this informant be pro ven wrong or is (s)he correct and will there be no difference in language use depending on the formality of the situation?

5. The study

Th e goal of this study will be to determine whether or not there is register variation in VGT . It is not my intenti on to determine if the same five registers as described by Joos (1961) also exist in VGT. The goal is to determine whether or not register variation can be determined in general. To do so, I will study three aspects of VGT in two different settings, a form al and an informal one. The three aspects I have chosen to look at are the speed of signing, the amount of mouthings and mouth gestures and the reduction of two - handed signs. If these aspects are influenced by the formality of the situation, we can conclud e there is register variation in VGT. There are two reasons the decision was made to study the speed of signing. Firstly, t he signing speed has been proven to be a factor in register variation in British Si gn Language (Stone, 2011). That is no guarantee that it might also be a factor in VGT, but if no one bothers to do the research, we will never know for a fact. Secondly, one must also take the results in Van Herreweghe and Vandemeulebroucke (2016) into acc ount. They stated that VGT users have no need for a formal register but rather an interregional VGT variety to be clearly understood everywhere in Flanders. It might be possible that VGT users sign slower in formal situations, to make sure their conversati onal partner s ees and understands everything, as the informants in Van Herreweghe and Vandemeulebroucke (2016) claimed to do. The reduction of two - handed signs in informal BSL is also a phenomenon that has been observed (Sutton - Spence & Woll, 1999). As tw o - handed signs might be clearer than their reduced forms, it is to be expected that there will be more two - handed signs in VGT in formal situations. Lastly, this paper will study the use of mouthings and mouth gestures. My first instinct regarding this s ubject is that less mouthings and mouth gestures are used in informal sign language. I employ the same logic as I have done for the reduced forms of two - handed signs. Formal situations ask for clear and universally understandable language. Mouth gestures a nd mouthings can be seen as a fifth parameter in VGT (as explained in chapter 2.2 ) and therefore might be important to the meaning of the sign. This is also in line with Van Herreweghe and Vandemeulebroucke's research (2016). Some of their informants compl ained that an interpreter on the news (where formal language is expected) used too few mouthings and mouth gestures. That implies more mouthings and mouth gestures should be used in formal

conversation, according to the informants. It is to be expected tha t more mouthings and mouth gestures will be observed in the footage of a formal situation in my own research .

To summarize, the following results are expected: in informal VGT use, the informants will sign faster, use less two - handed signs and less mouth gestures and mouthings. Whether or not the results will confirm these predictions remains to be seen.

5.1. Corpus VGT

The Corpus VGT or the corpus for Flemish Sign Language is an online corpus containing video material of VGT in use. The corpus was constructed to meet the demand for study material that would be easily accessible. Most research on sign languages has been d one using small groups of informants as collecting data would be very time consuming. This corpus offers the possibility to do research on a much larger scale (Van Herreweghe et al., 2015) . The project was started in july 2012 and was finished in novembe r 2015. The project coordinators were Prof. Dr. Mieke Van Herreweghe (Universiteit Gent) and Prof. Dr. Myriam Vermeerbergen (KU Leuven). In total, 120 informants were invited in pairs to participate. There were about as much women as there were men, ranging from 12 to 91 years of age and they come from all five different regions (Van Herreweghe et al., 2015) . These pairs all knew each other. The informants were given certain assignments, ranging from very controlled language use ('translating' pictures int o VGT) to free conversation. These assignments were given by a deaf instructor. The results were filmed by th ree cameras, one aimed at informant 1, another at informant 2 and the last one filmed the entire room, with both the informants and the moderator c learly in view . This resulted in about 140 hours of video footage that can be accessed through the corpus online. The footage can be selected by the age, region and gender of the informants and by theme. This allows researchers to select very specific foot age that is best applicable for their studies (Van Herreweghe et al., 2015) . The footage can also be linked to ELAN, a computer program that links video or audio fragments to complex annotations. These annotations consist of translations, descriptions of nonmanual markers and glosses. This way, researchers can easily compare specific pieces of footage with a translation. However, in july 2017, only a small fraction of these annotations were finished. The process of annotating the footage is still ongoing.

5.2. Selection of the material

For this research, I have made a selection of the video footage from the Corpus VGT. Firstly, it was necessary to make a selection in the material in order to have footage tha t had more formal language use and footage with more informal use. For the informal language use, I have selected the theme 'Vrije conversatie' (Free conversation). I believe it is in this theme that the informants are more likely to use a natural form of VGT in an informal register . If we apply the characteristics defined by Joos (cf 3.4), it is most likely that the informants use language in the casual style , as it is a free conversation among friends. The moderator also leaves the room during this conver sation. This lets the informants speak freely and reduces the effect the presence of the moderator might possibly have on their language use

4 . The footage will be analysed starting when the moderator left, ensuring that the language used by the informants is as informal as possible For the formal language use I have selected the theme 'Beschrijven van procedures' (Describing proc edures). In this theme, the informants are asked to describe certain procedures to each other. These procedures are given to them on the screen and are unknown to them. As these procedures should be cle ar and understandable, it is most likely that the formal style (as described by Joos) will be used. To ensure the studied language use is as formal as possible, the footage will b e analysed starting from the point where the task actually starts. That means that the analysed footage will contain only the description of the procedures and possible questions or comments given on these descriptions by the recipient. The questions and t he comments that were uttered during the explanation of the task were left out. Secondly, comparing the language use of 120 informants in 240 video fragments would be very time consuming. As there is a deadline for this thesis, a selection was made as to which fragments would be used. The fragments were selected in the light of diversity. As it was not my intention to look at the existence of register variation in a certain gender, region or age group, I have made a selection of fragments with representati on from all regions, genders and age groups. After the selection, my sample consisted of the following informants:

4 Cf. Labov 's Observer's Paradox : "[...]to observe the way people use l anguage when they are not being observed. " (Labov, 1972: 61) 33

Male Female Oost - Vlaanderen 2 0 West - Vlaanderen 4 2 Antwerpen 0 4 Limburg 2 0 Vlaams - Brabant 0 2 Total 8 8

Table 1 .1 : Metadata informants, gender and region

Age (in years) Male Female 19 - 25 2 2 26 - 35 2 2 36 - 50 2 2 51 - 70 2 2

Table 1.2: Metadata informants, gender and age

As can be seen in tables 1.1 and 1.2, informants were selected based on age, gender and region. The goal was to use as many different users of VGT as possible, to get the most general image of register in VGT. Therefore I have selected 8 informants of each gender. I also made a selection in age differences and selected 4 informants of each age group, except f or the youngest informants in the Corpus VGT (age 12 - 18) and the eldest (age 71 - 99). There was no data on the theme 'Beschrijven van procedures' for the youngest age group in the Corpus VGT. For the eldest age group, there was data for both themes. However, there was no data from both themes with the same informants. As the goal of this re search is to compare formal and informal VGT produced by the same informant, these age groups had to be left out.

In total, 16 video fragments were selected. It goes without saying that for each informant two fragments were selec ted, one from the theme 'B eschrijven van procedures ' and one from the theme 'Vrije conversatie', in order to be able to compare the language use of a single signer in two different settings. In the Corpus VGT, informants were given a number, preceded by the letter I ( for informant ). In the results and discussion of this thesis, the numbers from the Corpus VGT will be used. This way , it remains clear which informants were used and my research can be checked and redone if necessary.

5.3. Methods

In order to determine whether or not there is register variation in VGT, I will look at three different aspects of VGT use. I will approach all three of these aspects from a quantitative point of view. The measurements will be compared and discussed later in this paper. Firstly, I will comp are the speed of signing. In each fragment, the number of signs (N) used by the informant will be counted. Next, N will be divided by T, the time in seconds the informant was actually signing. The result (N/T) will give an average signing speed. The speed from the fragments with (possibly) formal language use will be compared with the speed from the corresponding fragment with informal language use. Secondly, I will compare the use of mouthings and mouth gestures. For this part of the research, I will cou nt the number of mouthin gs and mouth gestures (M). This number will be divided by T, resulti ng in the number of mouthings and mouth gestures the informant uses per second . Though this gives a little information about the amount of mouthings and mouth gestu res, this number tells us more about the speed at which these mouthings and mouth gestures are uttered. Therefore, in order to take a closer look at the amount of mouthings and mouth gestures used by the informants, I will also divide M by N, to see how ma ny mouthings and mouth gestures the informants use per uttered sign. These numbers will be compared per informant. I have opted not to differentiate between mouthings and mouth gestures. Instead, all mouthings and mouth gestures are simply counted together and will result in a single number per informant per situation. The reason this choice was made, is to ensure results that are as correct as possible. As the distinction between certain mouthings and mouth gestures is hard to make, the results might be in fluenced by mistakes. The research is done by someone who knows VGT but does not feel confident enough about his knowledge to always correctly differentiate between mouthings and mouth gestures. By studying these aspects of VGT together, the interpr etation of the results might differ but the general idea behind the research remains va lid . Lastly, I will look at the presence of one - handed and two - handed signs. I will comp are the relative presence of one - handed signs by dividing the number of one - hand ed signs (H) by the total number of signs (N). The resulting number (multiplied by 100) wi ll give us the percentage of one - handed signs in the conversation. If formal register in VGT is comparable to formal register in BSL (Sutton - Spence & Woll, 1999) , the n there shou ld be a higher percentage of one - handed signs in in formal VGT. Another possibility for studying the 35

reduction of two - handed signs would be to look for signs that are normally two - handed but are produced one - handed. Comparing the relative amount of reduced two - handed signs in two different situations would tell us whether there are more reductions in informal language use or not. However, it would take a lot of time and an advanced knowledge of VGT to figure out which signs are reduced and which are just regular one - handed signs. Therefore I have opted for the approach described above. As the number of two - handed signs in the VGT lexicon probably does not radically change in a short period of time, the relative amount of one - handed signs should st ay the same. Unless of course two - handed signs are reduced more or less depending on the formality of the situation. The results of the calculations will be presented in tables, rounded up or off to two numbers after the decimal point.

The footage was s tudied using ELAN. Three video fragments were inputted in the program: the footage of informant A, the footage of informant B and the footage of both informants and the moderator. The footage was played at 50 percent of the usual speed, in order to be able to count the signs, mouthings or mouth gestures.

6. Results

6.1. Signing speed

As mentioned above, the speed of signing might differ when comparing formal and informal language use. Therefore, the signing speed was calculated by dividing the number of signs produced divided by the time used to produce these signs. The results can be found in table 2.1.

Informants Formal Informal Increase I001 1.52 2.07 +0.55 I002 1.85 1.74 - 0.11 I011 1.58 1.71 +0.13 I012 1.90 2.13 +0.23 I013 2.07 2.62 +0.55 I014 1.99 1.97 - 0.02 I041 1.92 2.14 +0.22 I042 1.96 2.14 +0.18 I045 1.60 2.00 +0.40 I046 1.91 1.84 - 0.07 I047 1.74 1.94 +0.20 I048 1.51 1.90 +0.39 I055 1.81 1.86 +0.05 I056 1.93 1.92 - 0.01 I071 1.96 2.01 +0.05 I072 1.55 1.50 - 0.05

Table 2.1; Signing speeds (in signs per second) of the informants in formal and informal settings and the increase in speed from formal to informal setting (in signs per second) . Negative increases have been marked in red.

This table shows that 11 out of 16 informants signed faster in informal settings. The increase in speed from formal to informal situations ranges from small (0.05 signs per second) to bigger (0.55 signs per second). There are also 5 informa nts whose signing speed was faster in the formal settings. The differences between the informal and the formal situation are smaller, ranging from a decrease of 0.01 signs per second to a decrease of 0.11 signs per second.

6.2. Mouthings and mouth gestures

The second aspect that was studied was the use of mouthings and mouth gestures. The amount of mouthings and mouth gestures were counted and the resulting number was divided by T. The results of this calculation can be found in table 2.2.

Formal Informal Increase I001 0.80 0.91 +0.11 I002 0.53 0.89 +0.36 I011 0.80 0.86 +0.06 I012 0.79 1.20 +0.41 I013 0.90 1.16 +0.26 I014 0.99 1.14 +0.15 I041 0.79 1.20 +0.41 I042 1.02 1.28 +0.26 I045 0.84 1.23 +0. 39 I046 1.08 1.29 +0.21 I047 0.67 1.16 +0.49 I048 1.07 1.27 +0.20 I055 0.94 1.26 +0.32 I056 1.35 1.26 - 0.09 I071 0.73 0.99 +0.26 I072 0.83 1.04 +0.21

Table 2.2: Mouthings and mouth gestures per second in formal and informal situations and the increase from formal to informal setting. Negative increases have been marked in red.

This table shows that one informant used less mouthings and mouth gestures in the informal setting (a decrease of 0.09 mouthings and mouth gestures per second). All other informants used more mouthings and mout h gestures in the informal setting. The increase varies from 0.06 to 0.49 mouthings and mouth gestures per second.

In table 2.3, the results are shown for the amount of mouthings and mouth gestures per uttered sign (M/N).

Formal Informal Increase I001 0.53 0.44 - 0.09 I002 0.29 0.51 +0.22 I011 0.51 0.51 0.00 I012 0.42 0.56 +0.14 I013 0.44 0.44 0.00 I014 0.50 0.78 +0.28 I041 0.41 0.56 +0.15 I042 0.52 0.60 +0.08 I045 0.53 0.62 +0.09 I046 0.57 0.70 +0.13 I047 0.39 0.60 +0.21 I048 0.71 0.67 - 0.04 I055 0.52 0.68 +0.16 I056 0.70 0.66 - 0.04 I071 0.37 0.49 +0.12 I072 0.54 0.70 +0.16

Table 2.3: Amount of mouthings and mouth gestures per produced sign and the increase from formal to informal setting. Negative increases have been marked in red.

In table 2.3 one can observe that three informants used less mouthings and mouth gestures per sign (decrease from 0.04 to 0.09 mouthings and mouth gestures per sign) in the informal setting . Two informants show no difference in mouthings and mouth gestur es per sign. Eleven informants used more mouthings and mouth gestures per sign in the informal setting (increase from 0.08 to 0.28 mouthings and mouth gestures per sign).

6.3. Reduction of two - handed signs

Lastly, the relative amount of one - handed signs w as calculated by counting the number of one - handed signs and dividing it by N. That number was multiplied by 100 in order to express these results in percentages.

Formal Informal Increase I001 27.63% 53.92% +26.29% I002 43.37% 62.91% +19.54% I011 40.25% 57.80% +17.55% I012 39.23% 65.23% +26.00% I013 59.81% 63.67% +3.86% I014 48.37% 73.75% +25.38% I041 46.36% 64.93% +18.75% I042 43.29% 75.68% +32.39% I045 37.32% 66.03% +28.71% I046 51.91% 65.27% +13.36% I047 54.51% 61.56% +7.05% I048 42.94% 59.04% +16.10% I055 44.64% 60.78% +16.14% I056 32.20% 60.90% +28.70% I071 50.34% 62.41% +12.07% I072 44.75% 66.28% +21.53%

Table 2.4: Percentage of one - handed signs in formal and informal settings and the increase from formal to informal setting.

The use of one - handed signs increased from the formal to the informal setting in all the informants. The increase ranges from 3.86 to 28.71 percentage points .

7. Discussion

7.1. Problems during the research

Sadly, there were a few problems that occurred during the research. Most of these problems were due to technical difficulties. Due to the nature of VGT, the data had to be in the form of video footage. That footage was taken from the Corpus VGT and those w ho compiled this corpus have done an excellent job in setting up three cameras per conversation to make sure there was footage depicting each informant separately and footage depicting the entire conversation, including both informants and the moderator. H owever, the cameras did not always capture everything. At times, the informants were too close to the camera. Because of that, the hands of the informants were not always visible, especially when signs were made near the legs or the lap of the informants. In other cases, the cameras were too far from the informants, which made it harder to observe smaller signs or gestures. Sometimes there was a problem with the lights. When an informant wore white (or other light colours), the light reflected into the cam era, making it harder to see the signs made in front of these clothes. Lastly, there were some problems with the positions of the informants. Some informants repositioned themselves in a way that their body sometimes (partly) blocked the view of what they were signing. At times they were also signing in front of their mouth, blocking the view when counting the mouthings and mouth gestures. There was also footage from the theme 'Vrije conversatie' which showed the moderator leaving the room but passing in f ront of the informants who were already signing. All these aspects made it harder to see all signs in all their details.

Another type of problems was caused by the informants themselves. Some of the informants use a small signing space, meaning they produ ce small signs, close to their body. Other informants used mouthings and mouth gestures but did not 'articulate' them clearly, meaning that the mouthings and mouth gestures were made quite small. Still other informants signed quite quickly. All these aspec ts made it at times hard to see all the signs or mouthings and mouth gestures.

In most cases these problems could be overcome. All the footage was studied while playing at a reduced speed (50% of the normal speed) . This made it easier to see every

utteran ce in more detail. It was of course also possible to rewind the footage and watch the parts that were unclear again. When the footage from one camera was not clear enough, there was the footage from one of the other cameras that provided a different view a nd made it possible to fill in the gaps.

With all of these factors taken into consideration, it is possible to say that almost all footage was correctly analysed. However, it would be bold to claim perfection in any situation and I will not try to be bol d. Any good scientist recognises his talents and his shortcomings. Though I am confident the footage was correctly analysed, I leave a margin for error in the discussion of my results.

A final problem with this research should be addressed. This problem c oncerns the formality of both settings in the study. Though the themes that were selected in theory should have evoked either formal ('Beschrijven van procedures') or informal ('Vrije conversatie') language use, there might have been other factors that int erfered with the formality of each setting. Firstly, the setting was quite formal due to the setup of the Corpus VGT. The informants were asked to come to a certain location where they were given certain 'assignments' to complete while they were being fi lmed. That means there are different factors that increase the formality of the situation from the start. The informants are not in a situation they are used to. This unfamiliar setting will make the situation more formal. The presence of the cameras will also add to the formality. The informants are aware they are being filmed and observed to study their language. That might make the informants more conscious about their language use and might encourage them to use a more formal register, as they might con sider the language they use on a day - to - day basis as not good enough (Van Herreweghe and Vandemeulebroucke (2016) stated that Dutch is the H - variety, not any VGT variety) . The presence of a moderator might also influence the language use of the informants. However, the moderator might influence the informants to speak more formal and the moderator was present during the formal theme but left the room for the free conversation. Nevertheless, the setting might have made the theme 'Vrije conversatie' more formal. Secondly, the setting was made less formal by other factors. The informants had to complete the assignments in pairs. The people in each of these pairs knew each other. That might have lowered the threshold to use the language they always use when having a conversation with each other. The informants were also put together based on age and gender,

further decreasing the need to use formal language. Lastly, the informants were also paired up with someone who uses the same regional variety as they do . The effect could be that the informants would not feel the need to avoid signs that are specific to their regiolect. Though this last aspect of VGT was not part of this study, it might be possible that regional variety is toned down in formal situations. If all of these factors are put together, the issue becomes quite complex. There are factors that increase the formality of the situation but there are also factors that decrease it. There is a possibility that these factors cancel each other out, but t here is also the possibility that what I have taken as formal language use might be closer to the informal language use of VGT users in their everyday life and vice versa. Whatever the influence may be (if there is an influence), it is important to read th e results and the discussion of those results with the setup of the Corpus VGT in mind.

7.2. Signing speed

Signing speed is one of the factors that Sutton - Spence and Woll (1999) and Stone (2011) have determined to be a factor in register variation in BSL. At first glance, it seems that this is also the case in VGT. The data I have studied showed that in most cases (11 out of 16 or 68.75 % ) the number of signs per second is larger in the informal setting than in the formal setting. But is this difference rea lly due to a register shift? Alternative options should be taken into consideration. Firstly, age might be a contributing factor as well. However, the data shows that only one age group consistently signs slower in the formal setting . In the group of inf ormants who signed slower in the informal setting, there are informants from all age groups. The logical conclusion would be that age is not a significant contributor to the results from this study. Secondly, gender might have an influence as well. As I h ave mentioned in chapter 2.3, there are some differences in VGT attributed to gender, dating back to the days when the schools for the deaf w ere separate for boys or girls. Though this variation is shown to be diminishing, it might still have an effect on the signing speed in different settings . However, the results do not show such a gender related variation. Out of the five informants whose signing speed was lower in the informal setting, two were male and three were female. There are more female informan ts who signed slower in the informal setting, but the difference is not high enough to actually conclude that gender is the defining factor in this study. The last factor that might contribute to the differences in the results is the regional 43

variety the informants use. The data shows that all of the informants from Oos t - Vlaanderen or Limburg sign faster in the informal setting. This might imply a number of things. On the one hand, it might imply that register variation is more present in the language use of signers from Oost - Vlaanderen and Limburg. That would also mean that the signers from the other regions are less likely to sign slower in more formal settings. On the other hand, it is also possible that the perceived regional variation is pure coincide nce. It is possible that, if the sample size had been bigger, there would also have been signers from Oost - Vlaanderen and Limburg who had signed slower in informal settings. I am most inclined to believe the latter explanation because of two reasons. First of all, the sample size is quite small. Only sixteen informants were used and of these si xteen, only two were from Oost - Vlaanderen and only two came from Limburg. Most of the informants came from Antwerp or West - Vlaanderen , which makes it statistically mo re likely that one of those informants would be in the group of informants who signed slower in informal settings. My second reason has to do with geographical arguments. Oost - Vlaanderen and Limburg are not neighbouring provinces. In the study conducted by Vanhecke and De Weerdt (2004), it was shown that regiolects mainly influenced the regiolect of the neighbouring province. It might be possible that register variation would be passed on from one regiolect to the other. It would however not make sense tha t register variation started separately in Limburg and East - Flanders without spreading to one of their mutual neighbours (Antwerp en and Vlaams - Brabant ). It would make even less sense that register variation is disappearing in VGT but that that process has not yet started in Oost - Vlaanderen , a region that is located in the centre of Flanders and in the centre of the influence diagram made by Vanhecke and De Weerdt (2004). What stands out in the results is the difference in signing speed as produced by the VGT users from Antwerp. The difference between the signing speed in the formal situation and the signing speed in the informal situation is very small. The differences range from 0.01 signs per second to 0.05 sings per second. That means that all signers from Antwerp signed at roughly the same speed in both the informal and the formal situations. There are several explanations that can be given as to why this is. On the one hand it is possible that it i s again purely coincidental. The sample size is still small (four signers from Antwerp) and it is not unreasonable that by accident signers were chosen who always sign at the same pace. As there was also an informant from West - Vlaanderen whose signing spee ds did not differ a lot (I014; 0.02 signs per second), it is not unlikely that these results might have occurred in VGT users from another region if other informants were used. It is also possible that other informants

from Antwerp would have increased the ir signing speed in informal situations. On the other hand, it is also possible that register variation is no longer present in the Antwerp variety of VGT . It is possible that, in Antwerp, VGT users no longer use register variation (or have never used it ) and that therefore the results show almost no difference in signing speeds. It is however impossible to verify such a statement using the results of my research. The sample size is too small to claim that register variation is no longer present in the en tire regional dialect of Antwerp VGT. Further research is required to determine whether or not signers from Antwerp use different signing speeds depending on the formality of the situation.

As mentioned above, most of the informants signed faster in an informal situation. A considerable part (31.25%) of the informants however signed slower in the informal situation. Neither age nor gender seem to be a contributing factor and regional varietie s play either no part at all or very little at best. How then can this high percentage be explained? It is possible that there was a variation in signing speed depending on the situation, but that this phenomenon is disappearing slowly. The opposite is po ssible too, that there was no difference in signing speed but that the phenomenon is only just e merging and evolving. Both explanations are possible but are impossible to confirm without additional data. It might also be possible that this group of inform ants should be counted as part of those informants whose signing speed does not vary or varies only a little. The differences are quite small (0. 0 1 - 0.11 signs per second slower in the informal situation) in comparison with the group whose signing speed inc reased in informal situations (0.05 - 0.55 signs per second faster in the informal situation). But looking at the results from that perspective brings an entirely different outcome. If we state that when there is a difference of 0.11 signs per second or less , we might disregard the difference and state that the signing speed in both situations are more or less equal , then there would be a group of seven informants whose signing speed is not affected by the formality of the situation. That would imply that sev en out of sixteen informants (or 43.75%) do not adjust their signing speed depending on the formality of the situation and nine out of sixteen (or 56.25%) do. When only a little over half of the informants exhibit a certain phenomenon, it is hard to state that that phenomenon can be considered as meaningful. Whether or not signing speed is dependent on the used register becomes a harder question to answer.

Van Herreweghe and Vandemeulebroucke (2016) reported that informants had no real need for a register, as the VGT community is a small one where most people know each other . Logically, that means that there might not even be register variation in VGT and that the differences in signing speed are caused not by the formality of the situation but rather by ot her factors. One possibility might be the subject of the conversation. It is true that certain subjects demand a corresponding register, hence the choice of the studied themes in this research. But it is also true that in the theme 'Vrije conversatie' many different subjects can be observed. One informant spoke about a medical procedure on her foot, others about taking care of your fingernails and others were just casually chatting about their day - to - day life. This wide range of subjects asks for a differen t use of language. To talk about medical procedures, one must use medical jargon that might not be known to the conversational partner. With the idea of making themselves clear, the informants might have opted to sign slower, to make sure the recipient und erstands them. I also observed that certain informants were still thinking about what they were going to sign at the same moment as they were actually signing. This might have slowed down the signing speed as well. On the other hand signers might have sign ed quicker when conversing about a topic they were very familiar with , as they would k now the signs and assume the recipient would too. That might even explain the range of different signing speeds among the informants. The signing speed in the informal se tting ranges from 1.50 signs per second to 2.62 signs per second. However, in the formal setting there is also quite a large difference between the slowest and the fastest signers (1.52 and 2.07 signs per second respectively). There might be slight differe nces in the formality of the theme 'Vrije conversatie', but in the theme 'Beschrijven van procedures' the situation should be equally formal every time. The logical conclusion is that the difference in speed between the informants is not due to a differenc e in degree of formality.

A last possible explanation for the variation in the results might have nothing to do with any of the external factors I have described above. It is also possible that the informants themselves are the only variable of importance. In that ca se it is not unthinkable that some informants deliberately change their signing spee d in an effort to be more easily understood (in the formal setting) and that others do not bother, believing that it is unnecessary to change their si gning speed as they believe their conversational partner will understand anything they say without any problems. That would fit in with what Van Herreweghe and Vandemeulebroucke (2016) said. Those informants who felt no need to adjust their language simply did not do it. However, this research is in no way capable of confirming nor refuting 46

this possibility. To do so, additional research should be done with a survey. It should be determined whether or not informants - or VGT users in general - are conscious o f the differences in signing speed between formal and informal situations and whether or not they adjust their speeds deliberately.

A clear conclusion cannot be given immediately. Though at first glance it seems that register variation influences the sig ning speed, it is impossible to state that the speed of signing always decreases in formal situations. It is more accurate to say that the data suggests that there is a tendency to slow down the signing speed in formal situations and increase it in informa l situations. There are other plausible theories that might explain the results of this research but it is not possible to make any definitive statements regarding these theories as the right data to do so was not collected for this research. When looking back on the expectations I had regarding this subject, one might say that these expectations were not completely met. The idea was that the signing speed would be higher in the informal situation but that cannot be confirmed beyond reasonable doubt. There is a tendency, but no absolute confirmation.

7.3. Mouthings and mouth gestures

In order to study the effect of register variation on mouthings and mouth gestures, I have calculated the amount of mouthings and mouth gestures per second and per produced sig n. Both these calculations will be discussed and compared with each other and with the results from the signing speed.

The results for the amount of mouthings and mouth gestures per second are quite clear. There is only one informant who uses less mouthin gs and mouth gestures per second in the informal setting. All other informants saw an increase, varying from 0.06 to 0.49 mouthings and mouth gestures per second. The logical conclusion would be that the general tendency is to increase the amount of mouthi ngs and mouth gestures produced per second in informal situations. However, these numbers tell us more about the production speed than about relative amount. The conclusion therefore should be that in almost all cases, the production speed of mouthings a nd mouth gestures increases in informal settings. This would concur with the general conclusion for the signing speed as mentioned above. It is however important to compare both speeds in more detail. The results of the signing speed suggests a tendency of greater speeds in informal language use, while the results for the speed of mouthings and 47

mouth gestures leave less room for doubt. Of the five informants who signed slower in informal situations, four did not show the same reduction for the mouthings and mouth gestures per second . That means that four informants decreased their signing speed but increased their production speed of mouthings and mouth gestures. This is especially strange, as these numbers were obtained looking at the same footage. I will t ry to formulate and discuss some possible explanations for this phenomenon.

Firstly, it is possible that the numbers for M/T were influenced by the formality of the setting more than the signing speed. The results for M/T reflect the production speed of m outhings and mouth gestures, but they are also influenced by the amount of mouthings and mouth gestures produced in total. A larger number of mouthings and mouth gestures will also lead to a higher production speed. The conclusion should then be that the s peed of signing is influenced less by th e formality of the situation tha n the amount of mouthings and mouth gestures used. Secondly, the results might have been influenced by the combined number of mouthings and mouth gestures. It is possible that more m outhings are used in informal settings, but less mouth gestures. The opposite is just as likely to be true. The production speed of either the mouth gestures or the mouthings might correspond better with the signing speed. The problem is that this cannot b e controlled with the data collected in this study. It would be necessary to re - examine the footage and make a distinction between mouthings and mouth gestures. For reasons mentioned above, I did not make this distinction. For an accurate assessment of the theory, more research must be done on a l ater date. Thirdly, there might be an individual factor at play. The data shows that both signing speed and production speed of mouthings and mouth gestures vary depending on who is signing. Different informants m ight sign at higher speeds but use less mouthings. The combination of these individual differences would lead to conflicting data when studying the different factors separately.

In table 2.3 the amount of mouthings and mouth gestures is depicted relative to the amount of signs produced (M/N). By making this calculation, we can see what percentage of the signs is accompanied by a mouthing or a mouth gesture. What stands out is that there is no longer a clear difference between the informal and the formal settings as was the case when looking at the production speed of mouthings and mouth gestures. Three informants used relatively less mouthings and mouth gestures in the informal set ting and eleven informants

used more. Two informants did not use more nor less mouthings and mouth gestures depending on the setting. These three groups shall be discussed in more detail. Firstly, there are the three people who used less mouthings and mou th gestures in the informal situation. The decrease is relatively small, either 0.04 (I048 and I056) or 0.09 (I001). These informants all come from different regions (West - Flanders, Antwerp and Limburg), suggesting that regional variety played no part in t hese results. Two of these informants are male and one is female. That suggests gender is also irrelevant to these results. The only thing that might have influenced the results is the age of the informants. These three informants belong to the eldest age groups, 36 - 50 years of age (I048 and I056) and 51 - 70 years of age (I001). That might suggest that older signers use less mouthings and mouth gestures in informal settings. However, other informants from the same age groups use more mouthings and mouth gest ures in informal settings, with more pronounced differences (up to 0.22 mouthings and mouth gestures per produced sign). These numbers disprove the influence of age on these results. But how can they be explained? There is a possibility that these numbers are again just individual differences, owing to the informant's individual language use. Informants I001 and I048 simply sign faster but use less mouthings and mouth gestures in informal language use out of habit. Informant I056 is very consistent, signin g slower, using less mouthings and mouth gestures and producing those at a slower speed as well in the informal setting. Another possibility would be that these informants are aware of the different setting and adjust their language the way they think is best for the situation, as I have suggested for the signing speed as well. However, this can only be confirmed or refuted by additional research.

The difference between the formal and informal situation does seem to be quite small when looking at M/N. A s was done when discussing the differences in signing speed, it is here also possible to widen our scope and determine that an increase between - 0.09 and +0.09 in the results can be considered as too small to be meaningful. That would mean that seven out o f 16 informants do not use more or less mouthings and mouth gestures depending on the formality of the situation. That number corresponds with the number of informants who do not adjust their signing speed depending on the situation when we pose that a dif ference in signing speed of 0.11 signs per second is not meaningful. However, there is only one informan t who belongs to both groups, meaning she signs slower and uses less mouthings and mouth gestures. It is therefore impossible to say that one group exhi bits signs of register 49

variation and the other one does not. The last group that remains to be discussed is the group with an increase of M/N in the informal situation. The increase starts at 0.08 mouthings and mouth gestures per produced sign and goes u p to 0.28. Eleven of the informants used relatively more mouthings and mouth gestures, which would suggest there is an influence of register variation on the use of mouthings and mouth gestures.

Informant I056 stands out when studying the results. She is the only one who signs slower, uses less mouthings and mouth gestures and produces them slower. This consistency would imply that register variation is present in the language use of this informant, but that it is opposite to the register varia tion present in other VGT users, where there is a tendency to increase speed and the use of mouthings and mouth gestures. As the differences between the results for the formal and the informal situations are quite small, it is also possible to think that these differe nces are meaningless and that there is no register variation present in the language use of this informant. What the explanation is for this aberrant behaviour is not clear. Two possible explanations are the following. On the one hand it might be possible that this informant does not exhibit any variation in language use attributed to a change in register. On the other hand, it might be possible that the informant does change her language use depending on the si tuation, but does not believe the different th emes in the Corpus VGT demanded a different language use. As the informants were filmed at all times, it is possible that informant I056 believed there was need for a formal variety of VGT at all times. It is also conceivable that she believed there was no need for formality as she knew her conversational partner in both the formal and informal settings.

The conclusion regarding mouthings and mouth gestures as a possible factor in register variation in VGT is not easy to formulate. As was the case with si gning speed, it is not possible to make an absolute statement claiming that the amount of mouthings and mouth gestures is dependent on the formality of the situation. What can be said is that almost all informants produced mouthings and mouth gestures fast er in informal situations. There is also a tendency towards more mouthings and mouth gestures relative to the amount of signs produced by the informants in informal settings .

Looking back on what was expected before starting the analysis of the footage, there is an inconsistency with the actual results. It was expected that, in general, the relative amount

of mouthings and mouth gestures would be greater in the formal setting than in the informal setting. The results show that it is just the opposite: mor e mouthings and mouth gestures are used in the informal setting. As an explanation for the expected results I had opted that adding mouthings and mouth gestures adds another parameter making it easier to differentiate between two signs which consist of the same 4 parameters. That is perhaps still true, but it does not seem to be enough of a reason for the informants to use more mouthings and mouth gestures in formal situations. We also have to take the opinions of the informants from Van Herreweghe and Vand emeulebroucke (2016) into account. They said that an interpreter on the news, which is a formal setting, used too few mouthings and mouth gestures. Why is it then that in formal situations less mouthings and mouth gestures are observe d? One possible expla nation is that mouthings and mouth gestures might be distracting to the recipient, making it harder to concentrate on the signs. Another possibility might be that mouthings and mouth gestures are more likely to be used in constructed action, which might be considered as an informal aspect of VGT. A last possible explanation is that the informants were aware of the presence of the moderator in the formal situation. As they knew their language use would be studied and that they were expected to use only VGT, they might have used less mouth gestures, thinking those were loans from spoken language. However, these explanations can neither be confirmed nor refuted without additional research. The fact that informants in Van Herreweghe and Vandemeulebroucke's resea rch (2016) claimed an interpreter used too few mouthings and mouth gestures , complicates the results even further. Are VGT users not aware of how much they use their mouths in certain situations? Or did the interpreter use virtually no mouthings and mouth gestures, leading the informants to believe he used too few mouthings and mo uth gestures for any situation? More research is needed to answer any of these questions.

A last important remark on this subject has to be made. In this research paper, no difference was made between mouthings and mouth gestures. Though these are similar , they are still separate aspects of sign languages that might behave differently. I have opted to not differentiate between them for reasons mentioned above and I believe this choice does not make the results any less valid. However, it is important to kn ow that the distinction was not made and that might have affected the results. The results and the discussion of these results should be read with that possibility in mind. I also hope that more research will follow this one, where the distinction between mouthings and mouth gestures is made, to get a more accurate image of what register variation in VGT looks like. 51

7.4. Reduction of two - handed signs

Sutton - Spence and Woll (1999) have discovered that BSL users reduce their signs in informal situations. Thi s means that signs which are usually formed with two hands, are formed with only one hand. In order to see w hether or not this phenomenon also occurred in VGT, the percentage of one - handed signs relative to the total number of signs was calculated. The res ults are quite clear. All informants used more one - handed signs in the informal setting. The increase ranges from 3.86 percentage points to 32.39 percentage points. There is quite a lot of variation in the results. In the formal setting, the relative amou nt of one - handed signs ranges from 27.63% to 59.81%. In the informal setting the difference is less high, ranging from 53.92% to 75.68%. What stands out is that the increase also shows a lot of variation and that those informants who used the most one - hand ed signs in the formal setting do not necessarily use the most one - handed sings in the informal setting.

Though these results seem clear, it is important to make the following remark. The numbers do not directly show the absolute amount of reduced two - han ded signs. The results show only the relative amount of one - handed signs, regardless of whether they are reduced two - handed signs or 'real' one - handed signs. That means there is a possibility that by chance more one - handed signs were used in the informal s etting. The numbers would then not show an increase in reduced two - handed signs but an increase in regular one - handed signs. However, as all informants used more one - handed signs in the informal setting, this explanation seems unlikely.

It is also importa nt to take a closer look at the lowest increases. The relative amount of one - handed signs only increased by 3.86 percentage points in informant I013 and 7.05 percentage points in informant I047. These numbers are quite low and it might even be possible to claim these differences are too small to be meaningful. That would imply that these informants do not exhibit any meaningful increase in reduction of two - handed signs in the informal register. This is only one possible explanation. Another possibility mi ght be that by chance less one - handed signs were used in the informal situation or more in the formal situation. Informant I013 also already exhibited the highest percentage of one - handed signs in the formal situation, meaning that I013 might not have cons idered the formal situation as formal enough to adjust his language. It is also possible that there are certain two - handed signs that

are impossible to reduce, and that these informants by chance used those more than the other informants. It might help th e claim that these small differences are meaningless if these informants also showed very little signs of register variation in the other two studied aspects of VGT. I013 exhibited no increase or decrease in the relative amount of mouthings and mouth gestu res, but did exhibit a clear increase in signing speed and production speed of mouthings and mouth gestures. I047 exhibited a clear increase in both signing speed, production speed and relative amount of mouth gestures and mouthings. The fact that these in formants do show signs of register variation in the other aspects reduces the plausibility of the claim.

In conclusion, we can state that reduction of two - handed signs is very likely to be indicative of informal VGT. The results regarding the relative amo unt of one - handed signs are the most clear ones of this entire research as there are no apparent exceptions. The relative amount of one - handed signs is influenced by the formality of the situation in all informants. This is a confirmation of the expectatio ns formulated at the beginning of this research.

7.5. General discussion

The problem with this research is that a general conclusion is not possible. There are only six informants who consistently used what this study found to be formal language use in fo rmal situations. All other informants either signed faster or used more mouthings and mouth gestures in the formal situations. Therefore it is impossible to state that there is one absolute form of formal or informal language use that is used by all VGT us ers. What I did observe is that there are certain tendencies, characteristics of formal or informal VGT use that are not necessarily present in all VGT users at all times. Rather than one general form of formal language use, the results seem to suggest that VGT users themselves choose to adjust only certain parts of their language depending on the formality of the situation. This idea, which I cannot yet definitively confirm, can be compared to the ideas De Caluwe (2009) has on tussentaal (which literally translated means in - between - language ). Tussentaal is the language (younger) people in Flanders use in many situations. This variety of Dutch is not a standard variety but it is not one of the original dialects of Flanders either. The variety has characteristics of both dialects and S tandard Dutch. Hence the name tussentaal was given, as it is a language variety that is something between dialect and

S tandard Dutch (De Caluwe, 2009 ). In the past, scholars have frequently used a model that was proposed by Geeraerts:

Figure 1: Spectrum of language use in Flanders and the Netherlands, from Geeraerts, 2001:339.

If we focus on the right side of this figure, we see three separate variet ies with Standard Dutch at the top and dialects at the bottom. De Caluwe (2009) compares this model with an 'on/off' - switch: either the switch is in the 'on' - position, meaning someone is speaking Standard Dutch, or in the 'off' - position, meaning they are s peaking dialect or tussentaal. De Caluwe himself however proposes another model. His research showed that those people who use tussentaal do not just use tussentaal or a language variety that has only characteristics of tussentaal. Neither do they use onl y dialects or only Standard Dutch. The model De Caluwe proposed uses buttons that can be moved along a scale from 0 (dialect) to 100 (Standard Dutch). Each button represents a different aspect from the Dutch language (for instance the use of ge or je as th e personal pronoun for second person singular). When the button is moved entirely to the left, the person is using the dialect version at all times. When a button is somewhat to the right, say at poin t 85 on the scale, the person is using the Standard vari ety of that linguistic aspect 85% of the time. However, the different buttons are at different positions at all times. One aspect might be at point 20 while another is at point 95 and yet another is at point 50. According to De Caluwe, those who speak Dutc h in Flanders adjust the buttons depending on the situation they are in. They probably never put all the buttons on position 100, meaning that there will always be a few elements that will not be Standard Dutch. The same is true for

the other side of the s cale. In general, the buttons will be at different points on the scales, varying at all times depending on the situation, the location, the conversational partner,... (De Caluwe, 2009). It is this model that I would like to apply to the language use of th e informants in this study. The three (or four) aspects of VGT I have studied should be represented by just as many scales going from informal to formal. Each informant would then shuffle the buttons on those scale s to positions that suit their vision on the formality of the situation. That would explain the variety in the results. Certain informants only adjust their buttons a little, others adjust them more. Some informants do not adj ust their speed of signing but do reduce two - handed signs. This theory also takes into account the informants' vision on register variation and on the formality of the situation. If an informant does not believe any adjustment of his language is necessary, the buttons will stay in the s ame position for both the formal and the informal conversations. If the informant believes that the situation does ask for clearer language, he will adjust his language to fit the situation. It is to be expected that, if this theory is true, the same kind of results might be expected for other aspects of VGT. Sutton - Spence and Woll (1999) have described other factors that are influenced by the formality of the situation in BSL and it is to be expected that some of these factors might also be influenced by formality in VGT. Lexicon might be adjusted as well, favouring signs which are specific to a certain region in informal situations. It is in fact possible to list every aspect of VGT, but further research should first confirm which elements of VGT are in f act influenced by the formality of the situation.

8. Further research

Though a few questions about register variation in VGT were answered in this research paper, many more questions have risen and more research has to be done. First of all, this research should be re - examined and possible repeated in order to confirm or refute any conclusions I have arrived at. The goal is to reach an accurate depiction of register variation in VGT and if by chance I have come to inaccurate conc lusions, I want to be corrected. Secondly, a few of the results in this research should be examined closer. When discussing the speed of signing, a few comments were made. On the one hand there were five informants who signed slower in the informal situa tion. This number is quite high and extra research might answer the question what caused the decline in signing speed. On the other hand some abstraction was made about the differences in speed, stating it was possible that certain small differences were m eaningless. Taking that statement into account, seven out of eleven informants did not change their signing speed depending on the situation. More research should confirm or refute that theory. It is also necessary to take a closer look at the differences between the different regional varieties. The differences between the signing speed in informal and formal language use are very small in the informants who use the Antwerp variety. Further research might confirm that VGT users in Antwerp do or do not exhi bit register variation. The results of the research regarding the mouthings and mouth gestures should be looked at as well. First of all, the distinction between mouthings and mouth gestures might influence the results of this research. Therefore it is im portant that research is done on mouthings and mouth gestures separately to determine in what way the amount of mouthings or mouth gestures is influenced by the formality of the situation. There should also be taken a closer look at the results found for i nformant I056. Is this informant an exception and should her language use be considered as a chance aberration? Or is it possible she might be one of those few whose language use will be used as an example, the start of an evolution in VGT? My research sug gests the first explanation but other research might reveal something different. Research should also be done about the amount of mouthings and mouth gestures relative to the amount of signs produced. The numbers for the production speed of mouthings and mouth gestures are quite clear, but the relative amount of mouthings and mouth gestures

is more ambiguous. More research should determine why some informants use less mouthings and mouth gestures and others use more, while still others use exactly the sam e amount. It is also interesting to take a closer look at the reason why the general tendency is to reduce the amount of mouthings and mouth gestures in formal situations, while I expected the opposite , as apparently did the informants in the research of Van Herreweghe and Vandemeulebroucke (2016) . Regarding the reduction of two - handed signs, more research should be done while looking only at those signs that are two - handed in general but are reduced in informal settings. Leaving out those signs that are always produced using one hand might completely change the results of this study, or confirm them with more certainty.

Of course a closer look should be taken at the theory I have proposed in chapter 7.5. Further research is required to confirm or refute the idea that register variation is not an 'on/off - switch', but rather a continuum w here different aspects of VGT appear in different forms depending not only on the setting but also on the person in question. More informants should be studied, preferably in spontaneous conversation in real - world settings.

Thirdly, other factors that were not discussed in this research might be influenced by the formality of the situation. Sutton - Spence and Woll (1999) provided a list of factors that are influenced by for mality in BSL and it would be interesting to take a closer look at those as well. It would for instance also be interesting to take a look at the amount of regional signs used in different situations.

A last subject that needs further examination, is the opinion VGT users themselves have on the topic of register variation. Van Herreweghe and Vandemeulebroucke (2016) reported that informants claimed they had no need for register variation. The amount of people who use VGT is quite small and the community is very close. Therefore there would be no need for register variation, as all conversation would be informal. What the VGT community needs, according to these informants, is a standard variety of VGT that can be used to communicate with those who use a diff erent regional variety of VGT. However, in this thesis I have observed that there is register variation, even though all the informants were observed while in conversation with someone who came from the same region. That means that either the informant in Van Herreweghe and Vandemeulebroucke (2016) is not aware of his or her own language use or that the results in this study by chance show a wrong image of

register variation in VGT. More research should clarify this issue. The ideas VGT users have about th eir language use might even help understanding why certain results in this research are what they are. If certain informants do not feel the need to change their language depending on the situation, that might explain why some informants exhibit almost no difference in signing speed. It might also help us understand why mouth gestures and mouthings are used more in informal settings. If informants believe that mouthings and mouth gestures are distracting, they would use less of them in formal conversations. Lastly, interviewing the informants will also give us a better view of how VGT users feel about their language, how it is used and whether or not they are aware of the fact that their language changes depending on the situation.

Finally, more research i s needed on VGT in general. Though interest is rising and the number of publications has gone up, there is still much we do not know about VGT. There is much interest in linguistic variation in VGT, and the questions concerning standardisation of VGT have been studied often (Van Herreweghe & Vandemeulebroucke, 2016; Van Herreweghe & Vermeerbergen, 2004).However, more research is still needed. The regional variation in VGT has been studied as well, but the latest results showed that the regional varieties ar e influencing each other more and more. An update on the status of these regional varieties might be due very soon. The grammar and lexicon of VGT are not yet described in full either. Though Vermeerbergen's Grammaticale aspecten van de Vlaams - Belgische gebarentaal 5 has been updated since it was first published in 1997, there a re still gaps and parts that have not been studied in depth. There have been attempts at describing the lexicon as completely as possible and the online dictionary set up by the Uni versity of Ghent (http://gebaren.ugent.be) is being updated regularly. Regardless, there might still be undocumented signs or variants of signs.

5 The issue used in this thesis was the o ne from 2001. 59

9. Conclusion

The aim of this thesis was to determine whether or not there is register variation in the Flemish Sign Language. To do so, three aspects of VGT were studied: the speed of signing, the amount and production speed of mouthings and mouth gestures and the redu ction of two - handed signs. The results for the speed of signing were not able to give us a clear answer on our thesis question. Most of the informants signed faster in informal conversations, but there were also informants who signed slower in informal c onversations. The issue could even be made more complex by interpreting small differences between formal and informal speed as meaningless. That would imply that there are certain people who do exhibit register variation and certain people who do not. Furt her research is needed to confirm or refute that idea and to determine which factors determine who will adjust their language and who will not. When studying and discussing the mouthings and mouth gestures, two different calculations were done. On the on e hand, we looked at the production speed of the mouthings and mouth gestures. The results were quite clear and they showed that the speed did increase in almost all informants. However, there was one exception. When we took a look at the amount of mouthin gs and mouth gestures relative to the signs that were produced, there was a more ambiguous image. Most of the informants used more mouthings and mouth gestures, a few used less. These results also seemed to suggest that not everyone exhibits register varia tion. The problem with that theory is that there was very little correspondence with the results from the calculations on speed of signing. Only a few informants signed slower and used less mouthings and mouth gestures in informal situations. Most informan ts either used more mouthings and mouth gestures and signed faster in informal situations or exhibited only one of these phenomena. The results for the reduction of two - handed signs were less ambiguous. All informants used more one - handed signs in the in formal situation. This implies that at the very least there is register variation and it can be observed by looking at the reduction of two - handed signs.

When taking all these results together, we found that the results do not unambiguously confirm the pr esence of register variation in VGT. There are too much exceptions in the results to definitively state that certain aspects of VGT are always influenced by the formality of the situation and others are never influenced. Therefore I have come up with a dif ferent explanation. 61

I have adopted the theory of De Caluwe (2009) who used a new model to describe the language use of Dutch speakers and Flanders. I have taken that model and applied it to register variation in VGT. The theory states that for each aspect in VGT (speed of signing, amount of mouthings and mouth gestures, reduction of two - handed signs and probably many others) there is a scale going from completely informal to completely formal. Each of these scales has a button that can be set at any point on that scale, depending on the individual and the situation. Depending on the situation, each VGT user shuffles the buttons a bit to fit his interpretation of the situation. This theory recognises the existence of register variation in VGT. It also takes into account the individual differences among the VGT users and their vision on the formality of the situation.

Of course there are some problems with both my research and the theory I have used. There are certain factors about the setup of the Corpus VGT that might have influenced the formality of each situation. The presence of a moderator, the cameras and the knowledge that they were there to have their language studied, might have influenced the informants to speak more formal. The fact that the inform ants knew each other and were all from the same region, gender and age group might have made the informants more at ease and might have encouraged less formal language use. These factors might have cancelled each other out, or might have made all the foota ge in the Corpus VGT depict the same register.

When all theories are thought out and every possibility has been looked at, two important points have to be made. On the one hand, there seems to be enough evidence to say that there is register variation in VGT. The factors I have studied were all influenced by the situation, though often by various degrees. The theory of the scales is a good explanation for these variations. On the other hand, there were also quite a few questions that appeared during this r esearch. The conclusions I have reached and the theories about the results I have proposed cannot be definitively confirmed using only the information in this thesis paper. Other research should still be done to either confirm my findings or refute them.

To summarise one last time: there are indications that register variation is present in the Flemish Sign Language, but more research is needed.

10. Bibliography

Auer, P. (2011). Dialect vs. standard: a typology of scenarios in Europe . In: Kortmann , B. & Van Der Auwera , J. (red.), The Languages and Linguistics of Europe. A comprehensive guide . Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton , 485 - 500

Biber, D. (1995). Dimensions of register variation: A cross - linguistic comparison . Cambridge University Press.

Chambers, J. K. (20 02). Studying language variation: An informal epistemology. The handbook of language variation and change , 3 - 14.

Crasborn, O. A., Van Der Kooij, E., Waters, D., Woll, B., & Mesch, J. (2008). Frequency distribution and spreading behavior of different types of mouth actions in three sign languages. Sign Language & Linguistics , 11 (1), 45 - 67.

De Caluwe, J. (2009). Tussentaal wordt omgangstaal in Vlaanderen. Nederlandse taalkunde , 14 (1), 8 - 25.

Geeraerts, D. (2001). Een zondagspak? Het Nederlands in Vlaanderen: g edrag, beleid, attitudes. Ons erfdeel , 44 (3), 337 - 343.

Haugen, E. (1966). Dialect, language, nation. American anthropologist , 68 (4), 922 - 935.

Hawkins, L., & Brawner, J. (1997). Educating Children Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing: Total Communication. ERIC Digest# 559.

Hoza, J. (2007). It's not what you sign, it's how you sign it: Politeness in American Sign Language . Gallaudet University Press.

Johnston, T., & Schembri, A. C. (1999). On defining lexeme in a signed language. Sign language & linguistics , 2 (2), 115 - 185.

Joos, M. (1967). The five clocks (Vol. 58). New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Karlsson, F., 1984. Structure and iconicity in sign language. In: Loncke, F., Boyes - Braem, P., Lebrun, Y. (Eds.), Recent Research on European Sign Languages. Swets & Zeitlinger B.V., Lisse, pp. 149 – 155

Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns (No. 4). University of Pennsylvania Press.

Landar, H. (1961). SIGN LANGUAGE STRUCTURE - STOKOE, WC Language, 37 (2), 269 - 271.

Leeson, L. (2006). Signed Languages in Education i n Europe – a preliminary exploration. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, Language Policy Division .

Moores, D. F. (2010). Partners in progress: The 21st International Congress on Education of the Deaf and the repudiation of the 1880 Congress of Milan. American annals of the deaf , 155 (3), 309 - 310.

Quinto - Pozos, D., & Mehta, S. (2010). Register variation in mimetic gestural complements to signed language. Journal of Pragmatics , 42 (3), 557 - 584.

Rainò, P. (2001). Mouthings and mouth gestures in Finnish sign languag e (FinSL). Penny Boyes Braem & Rachel Sutton - Spence (eds.) , 41 - 50.

Schermer, T., & Vermeerbergen, M. (2004). Nederlandse Gebarentaal en Vlaamse Gebarentaal: zussen of verre nichtjes?. Ons Erfdeel , 47 (4), 569 - 575

Stone, C. (2011). Register, discourse and genre in British Sign Language (BSL). Discourse in signed languages , 121 - 154.

Sutton - Spence, R., & Day, L. (2001). Mouthings and mouth gestures in British Sign Language (BSL). The hands are the head of the mouth: The mouth as articulator in sign languages , 69 - 85.

Sutton - Spence, R., & Woll, B. (1999). The linguistics of British Sign Language: an introduction . Cambridge University Press.

Van Herreweghe, M. (1998). Thuishoren in een wereld van gebaren . Academia Press.

Van Herreweghe, M., & Vandemeulebroucke, E . (2016). Vlaamse gebarentaligen en standaard Vlaamse Gebarentaal. Taal en Tongval , 68 (2), 201 - 236.

Van Herreweghe, M., & Vermeerbergen, M. (2004). Flemish Sign Language: Some Risks of Codification in: Van Herreweghe, M., & Vermeerbergen, M. (2004). To the lexicon and beyond: Sociolinguistics in European deaf communities . Gallaudet University Press, 111 - 137.

Van Herreweghe, M., & Vermeerbergen, M. (2012). 30 vragen over gebarentaal in Vlaanderen en 29 antwoorden .(derde druk) Gent: Fevlado - Diversus vzw en Ac ademia Press Wetenschappelijke Uitgeverij

Van Herreweghe, Mieke, Vermeerbergen, M., Demey, E., De Durpel, H., Nyffels, H., & Verstraete, S. (2015). Het Corpus VGT. Een digitaal open access corpus van videos and annotaties van Vlaamse Gebarentaal, ontwikkel d aan de Universiteit Gent ism KU Leuven. http://www.corpusvgt.ugent.be.

Vanhecke, E., & De Weerdt, K. (2004). Regional Variation in Flemish Sign Language. In: Van Herreweghe, M., & Vermeerbergen, M. To the lexicon and beyond: Sociolinguistics in European deaf communities , 10 , 27 - 38 .

Vermeerbergen, M. (2001). Grammaticale aspecten van de Vlaams - Belgische gebarentaal. (vijfde druk) Destelbergen: Cultuur voor doven.

Vermeerbergen, M. (2006). Past and current trends in sign languag e research. Language & Communication , 26 (2), 168 - 192.

Vermeerbergen, M., & Salaets, H. (2016). Interactie en communicatie met dove mensen. Een kleine gids. IGI publishing.

11. Annex

Verklaring op eer – gebruik materiaal Corpus VGT

In het kader van een onderzoek naar Vlaamse Gebarentaal voor mijn eindwerk of bachelor - of masterproef heb ik videomateriaal en gegevens over informanten (metadata) ontvangen van het Corpus Vlaamse Gebarentaal.

Hierbij verklaar ik

- Dat ik de videobestanden en de metadata enkel zal gebruiken voor onderzoeksdoeleinden (analyse voor het onderzoek, bijlage bij het eindwerk, de bachelor - of masterproef, evt. publicatie van onderzoeksresultaten); - dat ik de videobestanden en de metadata niet verder zal verspreiden; - dat ik mijn ei gen annotaties van het corpusmateriaal zal delen met het team Corpus Vlaamse Gebarentaal, zodat deze de verrijking van het Corpus ten goede komen.

Naam student: Maarten Vandewalle ………………………………………………….

Opleiding: Taal - en Letterkunde: Nederlands - Engels ………… …… ……...

Instelling: Universiteit Gent ………………………………………………… ……....

Datum: 15/11/2017 …………………………………………………………… ……......

Handtekening student: