Fingerspelling in a Word Mary Thumann M.A., CSC Gallaudet University

Home , Fingerspelling, Handshape, Location (sign language)

Journal of Interpretation

Volume 19 | Issue 1 Article 4

2012 Fingerspelling in a Word Mary Thumann M.A., CSC Gallaudet University

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unf.edu/joi

Suggested Citation Thumann, Mary M.A., CSC (2012) "Fingerspelling in a Word," Journal of Interpretation: Vol. 19 : Iss. 1 , Article 4. Available at: http://digitalcommons.unf.edu/joi/vol19/iss1/4

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UNF Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Interpretation by an authorized editor of the JOI, on behalf of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID). For more information, please contact [email protected]. © All Rights Reserved Thumann 104 2008 - 2009 Journal of Interpretation

Fingerspelling in a Word

Mary Thumann, M.A., CSC; Gallaudet University

Abstract Fingerspelling has long been a concern for second language learners of ASL, particularly those who are interpreters. In an effort to gain a better understanding of what occurs in fingerspelling, I conducted an analysis of one word that was fingerspelled twenty-three times in a conversation between two Deaf women. In this fingerspelled word, there is a reduction in the number of frames of the fingerspelled word in the video from the first instance of the word to later instances. It appears that the reduction in the number of frames is due to compression, or overlap, of signs that make up the word. In this paper, I discuss issues related to the fingerspelling of the word M-O-B-I-L-E. In American Sign Language (ASL) conversations, many fingerspelled words do not have clearly identifiable letters. Akamatsu (1985) reports that although the fingerspelling may seem unintelligible when looking at individual letters, a fingerspelled word is intelligible when viewed as a whole word. According to Zakia and Haber (1971), skilled signers do not attend to individual letters in a fingerspelled word, but to the pattern of the “finger configuration”. Patrie and Johnson (in press) also report that participants of a conversation perceive fingerspelled words as complete words even if signs are missing1. The variation in these fingerspelled words appears to depend on where in the text, or discourse, the fingerspelled word occurs. According to Patrie and Johnson, the first instance of a fingerspelled word is typically carefully spelled (careful fingerspelling) and in later instances are rapidly spelled (rapid fingerspelling), resulting in different forms. They explain that careful fingerspelling is “characterized by a sequence of signs, each representing one of the letters in the written version of a word … the fingerspelled signs are produced fully and completely...” (Patrie and Johnson, in press, p.16). Rapid

1Patrie and Johnson note that there is form and meaning in each token of fingerspelling; “each fingerspelled token is composed of a combination of handshape, location, orientation, and movement, which are also the basic components of signs in ASL” (p. 10). Patrie and Johnson identify each fingerspelled “letter” as a sign, and I have adopted this practice as well.

Published by Journal of Interpretation 1 Thumann Fingerspelling in a Word 105

fingerspelling differs from careful fingerspelling in that the signs are not complete and the words are not composed of a sequence of individual signs. The signs that do exist often contain remnants of other signs in the word (Patrie & Johnson, in press). In addition to changes from the first instance to the last instance of a fingerspelled word, some fingerspelled words go through changes over time and become lexicalized. These changes may include deletion of letters, changes in handshape or orientation, changes in movement, and changes in location. Lexicalized signs are fingerspelled words that have been restructured and assume the same formational patterns as many ASL signs (Battison 2003). Lexicalization is a gradual process that occurs over time, with some fingerspelled words becoming more lexicalized than others, and with certain rules that they follow (Valli, Lucas & Mulrooney 2005). The rules for lexicalized signs include that these signs generally have no more than two handshapes and, like any ASL sign, they are made with the same movement, location, and handshapes each time. This does not appear to be the same process that occurs with the changes from the first instance to later instances of fingerspelled words in discourse. In an attempt to better understand the differences that occur from careful fingerspelling to rapid fingerspelling, I examined a fingerspelled word, M-O-B-I-L-E, from an ASL conversation with two native ASL users. Although in this data M-O-B-I-L-E is not lexicalized2, there was a significant difference between the first instance of the fingerspelled word and later instances. In this paper, I discuss the differences between rapid fingerspelling and careful fingerspelling of M-O- B-I-L-E in a forty-two minute conversation between two Deaf women (discussed in more detail in the Data section). M-O- B-I-L-E was fingerspelled twenty-three times by two signers; the first instance of the word by each signer was carefully fingerspelled and later instances were rapidly fingerspelled. Before reviewing the data and analysis, it is useful to mention several issues identified in spoken language phonology such as repetition, compression, and discreteness, and to talk about parts of Liddell and Johnson’s (2005) transcription system

2Evidence that M-O-B-I-L-E is not lexicalized is discussed in a later section of this paper.

Published by Journal of Interpretation 2 Thumann 106 2008 - 2009 Journal of Interpretation

for sign language phonology. Each of these issues is discussed below.

Repetition and Compression Bybee (2001) states that, especially in the case of repetition in a text, changes in form occur as a natural result of the production of speech. This supports research by Fowler and Housum (1987) which states that the length of the first occurrence of a word is longer than in later occurrences. The more often motor skills are used for any type of physical activity, including speech and fingerspelling, the more likely it is that the movements are “compressed and efficient…” (Bybee 2001, p.58). Fowler and Housum (1987) found that the second instance of a word in a text was shorter than the first word, and they also found that “old” words in a text can be reduced, or compressed, without reducing their identifiability in context. Compression is a means of increasing the efficiency of a language; as words are used more often in a context, the form changes due to naturally occurring phonetic processes. Bybee likens motor patterns of phonology to playing a piano and states “with practice, the transitions between the notes become more fluent, and the speed of execution automatically increases” (Bybee 2001, p.15). This appears to be a significant factor affecting the structure of rapidly fingerspelled words; the more frequently the word is fingerspelled, the more automated the word becomes resulting in compression or reduction in form. Other factors that affect the structure of rapidly fingerspelled words are related to discreteness and categorization of signs. These issues are discussed in the next section.

Discreteness and Categorization Port and Leary (2005) discuss problems with formal phonology including the difficulty of identifying discrete sounds in spoken words. They state “…discrete phonetic and phonological symbols must be replaced with categories and parameters that are rich in detail” (Port & Leary, 2005, p.952). The same is true for fingerspelling. A close look at fingerspelled words that have been repeated several times in one setting provides evidence that compression has occurred, making it more difficult to identify discrete signs. Rather than being discrete, the signs in rapidly fingerspelled words show evidence of overlap. In addition, there is variation in the type of overlap

Published by Journal of Interpretation 3 Thumann Fingerspelling in a Word 107

that occurs in rapidly fingerspelled words such as M-O-B-I- L-E. Variation in the production of signs in words, as well as in the words themselves, is natural in language use and does not cause problems for interlocutors; as Port and Leary (2005, p.936) state “…every utterance is likely to be different from every other utterance.” This lack of discreteness in words (and signs) appears to be related to the ability of language users to categorize; categorization in language use is discussed below. There are several theories about how information is stored for language use, one of which deals with units of storage as categorized tokens of use. Bybee (2001) explains that many issues studied in phonology can be approached in terms of categorization. She discusses studies that “…show that the way human beings categorize both nonlinguistic and linguistic entities is not by discrete assignments to categories based on the presence or absence of features, but rather by comparison of features shared with a central member…” (Bybee 2001, p.3). The ability to categorize allows language users to produce and comprehend words that change in form with frequency of use, resulting in increased fluency. These concepts in spoken language phonology provide insight and understanding into fingerspelling phonology. A discussion about compression and discreteness, in particular, aids in understanding what happens with the fingerspelling phonology of rapid fingerspelling of a word. I will review these issues in fingerspelling after presenting information about the data and analysis of M-O-B-I-L-E.

Data The data for this study was collected from a videotaped interview with one camera focused on the interviewer and a second camera focused on the interviewee. The conversation, which lasted approximately forty-two minutes, began as an interview but became an informal conversation between a woman in her 70s and a woman in her 40s. Both participants identify themselves as native ASL users, and, though they are of different generations, they attended the same school for the Deaf as children. The data contains 320 fingerspelled words and, because M-O-B-I-L-E appeared twenty-three times in the data (fingerspelled seventeen times by one woman and six times by the other), it was the ideal choice to use in studying the factors contributing to structural differences between the

Published by Journal of Interpretation 4 Thumann 108 2008 - 2009 Journal of Interpretation

careful fingerspelling and rapid fingerspelling. Each instance of M-O-B-I-L-E, including the context just before and just after the fingerspelled word, was separated from the text and converted to an image sequence file with 29.97 frames per second. (Each frame is a still shot photo taken from the video.) I did not attempt to sort out transition frames, those frames which indicate a change from one sign to another, because I did not want to unintentionally eliminate any remnants, or parts, of signs.

Analysis In conducting an analysis of the data, I examined each sign in every instance of M-O-B-I-L-E to gain a better understanding of the changes that occurred in the form. The most obvious change was that related to the length of the word determined by the number of frames. The figure below lists each instance of M-O-B-I-L-E in the order in which it appeared, along with its length, and the time it occurred in the data. The signs are coded in order by signer as well as by when they occurred in the text. Typically the later instances of M-O-B-I-L-E are shorter than the earlier ones, although there are some exceptions (see Figure 1).

Published by Journal of Interpretation 5 Thumann Fingerspelling in a Word 109

Figure 1 Sequential Occurrence Signer Sequential # of Frames Time Code in Occurrence in Word Conversation for Signer A M 1 34 frames 01:01:14 B D 1 31 frames 01:01:24 C D 2 25 frames 01:04:24 D D 3 28 frames 01:14:08 E D 4 25 frames 04:38:28 F D 5 17 frames 08:10:10 G M 2 23 frames 08:14:28 H D 6 23 frames 10:16:00 I D 7 19 frames 17:16:14 J M 3 23 frames 18:08:15 K D 8 19 frames 18:09:22 L M 4 14 frames 18:13:03 M D 9 25 frames 18:23:18 N D 10 21 frames 27:56:23 O D 11 20 frames 28:30:07 P D 12 19 frames 29:38:14 Q D 13 18 frames 29:45:28 R M 5 21 frames 30:00:12 S D 14 17 frames 32:32:20 T D 15 14 frames 34:05:13 U M 6 26 frames 34:27:00 V D 16 15 frames 35:47:17 W D 17 14 frames 38:32:22

# of frames per instance by signer

Figure 1 shows the instances of M-O-B-I-L-E in the order of appearance in the conversation, the number of frames per instance as well as the time code for each instance. The tables below (Figures 2 and 3) separate this data by signer. The overall tendency is for the number of frames to decrease, however, the

Published by Journal of Interpretation 6 Thumann 110 2008 - 2009 Journal of Interpretation

Table of D’s instances (Figure 3) provides evidence that each time D reintroduces M-O-B-I-L-E (after M fingerspells it), there is a trend for the number of frames to be longer than in her previous instance. Although analysis of this trend is outside the scope of this paper, it is something that should be examined in closer detail.

Figure 2 Sequential Occurrence Sequential # of Frames Time Code in Occurrence in Word Conversation for Signer A 1 34 frames 01:01:14 G 2 23 frames 08:14:28 J 3 23 frames 18:08:15 L 4 14 frames 18:13:03 R 5 21 frames 30:00:12 U 6 26 frames 34:27:00

Table of M’s instances3

3One instance, which was shorter earlier in the text, occurred when the speaker was interrupted by the addressee; another instance, which was longer than one might predict based on where it occurred in the text, was an instance where the speaker clarified that a mutual friend lives in Mobile, not in another city as the addressee thought.

Published by Journal of Interpretation 7 Thumann Fingerspelling in a Word 111

Figure 3 Sequential Occurrence Sequential # of Frames Time Code in Occurrence in Word Conversation for Signer B 1 31 frames 01:01:24 C 2 25 frames 01:04:24 D 3 28 frames 01:14:08 E 4 25 frames 04:38:28 F 5 17 frames 08:10:10 H 6 23 frames 10:16:00 I 7 19 frames 17:16:14 K 8 19 frames 18:09:22 M 9 25 frames 18:23:18 N 10 21 frames 27:56:23 O 11 20 frames 28:30:07 P 12 19 frames 29:38:14 Q 13 18 frames 29:45:28 S 14 17 frames 32:32:20 T 15 14 frames 34:05:13 V 16 15 frames 35:47:17 W 17 14 frames 38:32:22

Figure 3 Table of D’s instances

The following graphs provide a visual representation of the change in instances from the first to the last. There is an overall trend for the number of frames to decrease (Figure 4).

Published by Journal of Interpretation 8 Thumann 112 2008 - 2009 Journal of Interpretation

Figure 4 both 40

0 I D 7 F D 5 J M 3 B D 1 E D 4 K D 8 L M 4 C D 2 D 3 H D 6 A M 1 R M 5 U M 6 M D 9 G M 2 T D 15 S D 14 V D 16 P D 12 N D 10 O D 11 Q D 13 W D 17 Graph of both signers combined

M’s instances 40

# of frames 15

0 A M 1 G M 2 J M 3 L M 4 R M 5 U M 6 instance Graph of M’s instances

D’s instances 35

15 # of frames 10

0 B C D E F H I K M N O P Q S T V W 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 instance #

Graph of D’s instances

Published by Journal of Interpretation 9 Thumann Fingerspelling in a Word 113

These graphs demonstrate the overall tendency for the length of M-O-B-I-L-E to decrease from the first to later instances. M-O-B-I-L-E appeared in twenty-three instances; the first instance, A M 1, continued for 34 frames, and the second instance, by the second signer, continued for 31 frames. The shortest fingerspelled instance for both signers was fourteen frames, indicating that compression occurred. After verifying that there were indeed changes from the first instance to later instances, I conducted an analysis to determine the reasons for the change in form. The first step in the analysis was to determine the type of variation identified by categorizing the signs used. I looked for evidence of the salient features in each sign; to examine these features I used Liddell and Johnson’s (2005) notation system, parts of which I describe below. Although Liddell and Johnson’s system applies to lexical signs, because each fingerspelling component is a sign (based on Patrie & Johnson’s analysis), Liddell and Johnson’s system is compatible with fingerspelling. In their notation system, Liddell and Johnson “treat the fingers and the thumb separately, because they behave independently” and identify the selected finger(s) as “the finger or fingers that seem to be the most important in the hand configuration; sometimes the selected finger is up (and the non-selected fingers are then down)…sometimes the selected finger is down (and the non- selected fingers are then up)” (LIN 662 class notes, January, 2005). Although I will not describe their notation system in depth, I list the symbols which describe selected fingers, finger arrangements, and thumb descriptions4.

Selected fingers are identified as 1 - index finger, non-selected fingers in 2 - middle finger, non-selected fingers in 3 - ring finger, non-selected fingers in 4 - pinkie, non-selected fingers in 6 - pinkie in, non-selected fingers out 7 - ring finger in, non-selected fingers out 8 - middle finger in, non-selected fingers out, and 9 - index finger in, non-selected fingers out.

4There are additional parts of the notation system which do not apply to this research data and were not described. For more information, see Liddell and Johnson 2005.

Published by Journal of Interpretation 10 Thumann 114 2008 - 2009 Journal of Interpretation

Thumb alignment is identified as o – opposed and in line with selected finger(s) (as in the sign glossed as AND) n – opposed and not in line (holds down unselected fingers) (ONE, WEIRD) L – to describe when the thumb is unopposed spread (lateral) (as in the sign for the letter L) b - describe the alignment of the thumb (as in the sign for the letter E) u - to describe when the thumb is unopposed, not in line and not spread (as in the sign for the letter B)

There are also symbols used in finger extension and thumb extension; these are listed below: + when the proximal joint is extended and the distal joint is extended ^ when the proximal joint is not extended but the distal joints are extended “ when the proximal joint is extended but the distal joints are not extended - when neither the proximal joint or the distal joints are extended, and O when the proximal joint and the distal joints are rounded.

Using this notation system assisted with the identification of the salient features in each sign as well as identifying the variation that occurred. The variation in signs was typically slight and included such things as the degree of extension of the selected fingers (^, -, “, o), roundedness, location of thumb (o, n, L, b, u), and spread of selected fingers and thumb (k, v). Before reviewing the variation found in the signs of M-O-B-I-L-E, it may be useful to consider the features used in the citation form of each sign. See Figure 5 for examples of the citation form of each sign in M-O-B-I-L-E5.

5Note that the I and the L are distinct signs, however in the careful fingerspelling of this data, the I and the L coalesce into IL (this is discussed later).

Published by Journal of Interpretation 11 Thumann Fingerspelling in a Word 115

Figure 5

M O B

I L E

Examples of citation form for each sign

The citation forms of the signs M, O, B, I, L and E are carefully formed discrete signs. In careful fingerspelling, each fingerspelled word is composed of a clear sequence of signs. In rapid fingerspelling, however, this sequence of signs is not as clear. The majority of instances of M-O-B-I-L-E contained at least one frame where each sign (letter) could be identified. I was able to categorize all signs based on salient features and the sign’s position in the word and found that in addition to the prototypical sign in each category, there were signs containing remnants of two or more signs, evidence of overlap. These signs showed some degree of variation in the salient features of each sign from one instance to another. See Figure 6 for examples of some of the types of sign variation (for each letter) found in this data.

Published by Journal of Interpretation 12 Thumann 116 2008 - 2009 Journal of Interpretation

Figure 6

Model of some of the signs found in each letter

Figure 6 provides examples of signs found in the rapid fingerspelling of M-O-B-I-L-E. Using both the chart and the pictures, one can see some of the features in the structure of signs along with the variation available in the categories of signs in M-O-B-I-L-E. Now that I have described the data and analysis of the changes in form, the reasons for these changes are discussed below.

Published by Journal of Interpretation 13 Thumann Fingerspelling in a Word 117

Compression and Overlap in M-O-B-I-L-E As stated earlier, compression is a means of increasing the efficiency of a language by reducing the form. Compression due to overlap occurred in the later instances of M-O-B-I-L-E resulting in the variation found in the signs before or after the one examined. Overlap occurred in every instance with overlapping signs continuing for one or more frames. The number of frames for each instance varies, decreasing from the first time the word was fingerspelled to later instances; the difference in the number of frames from the longest (first instance) to the shortest is a change from 31 frames to 14 (B D 1) or 34 frames to 14 (A M 1), a difference of 17 – 20 frames. Overlap typically involved two but occasionally three signs as in I/L/E and B/L/I, occurring most often with I/L and M/O. The greatest number of overlapping frames occurs with the signs I/L6; the most frequent signs that overlapped were M/O, B/I and I/L/E with two occurrences of O/I7 and three occurrences of I/E. The signs that overlap are not discrete signs but fit in a category of signs for each letter. In Figure 7, I have selected five instances of M-O-B-I-L-E for comparison of the signs that overlap. The first section of the chart provides information for the citation form of M-O-B-I-L-E (not seen in this data), and the remaining examples are the first instances for each signer, the shortest instances for each signer, and one additional instance (21 frames).

6It is likely that the sign for the coalesced I/L is actually the lexicalized sign glossed as I/L/Y. For this reason, I discuss I/L/Y in a separate section of this paper. 7An interesting note is that the two occurrences of O/I are found in words where there was no overlap of B/I.

Published by Journal of Interpretation 14 Thumann 118 2008 - 2009 Journal of Interpretation

Figure 7 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Thumb Spread Flex Ring Ring Ring Pinky Pinky Pinky Index Index Index Middle Middle Middle Thumb Extension Contact Position Instance Extension/ Selected Finger M + + + ------b - + O + + + + ------o - + B + + + + - - - - + + + + b - - I - - - + ------+ n - + IL + - - + - - - - + - - + L + -

Citation Form Citation E + + + + ------b - + M + + + ------b - + O + + + + - - - - ^ ^ ^ ^ o ^ + B + + + + - - - v + + + + b - - I - - - + - - - v ^ - - + u ^ - A M T

34 frames IL + - - + - - - v + - - + L + - E + + + + - - - v - - - - b - + M + + + - - - - - ^ ^ ^ - b - + O + + + + ------o ^ + B + + + + - - - v + + + + b - - I - - - + - - - v + + + - ? B D I ? -

31 frames31 IL + - - + - v k v ^ - - + ? ? - E + + + + ------b - + M + + + ------b - + O + + + + k - k k ^ ^ ^ ^ o “ + B + + + + k - k k ^ ^ ^ ^ o + - I - - - + - - - v ^ ^ + U + + R M 5 ^

21 frames21 IL + - - + v - - v + - - + L + - - - - E + - - - - “ - - - b - + M + + + + k k k k ^ ^ ^ ^ b - + O + + + + k k k k ^ ^ ^ ^ o “ + B + + + + k k k k ^ ^ ^ ^ o + - I - - - + - - - v o + + L M 4 ^ ^ ^ + 14 frames 14 IL + - - + v - - v + ^ ^ + o + - E + + + + ------^ b - + M + + + - - - - k ^ ^ ^ - b - + O + + + + k - - - ^ ^ ^ ^ o - - B + + + + - - - v ^ ^ ^ ^ o ^ - I + - - + - k k v ^ ^ ^ + u + - W D 17 14 frames 14 IL + - - + v k k v + ^ ^ + u + - E + + + + ------b - + Citation form and five instances of M-O-B-I-L-E Signs that display overlap (phonological processes) are shaded

Published by Journal of Interpretation 15 Thumann Fingerspelling in a Word 119

Figure 7 demonstrates that the shorter instances of M-O-B- I-L-E show evidence of increased overlap in the signs. Although the selected fingers and their sequence remain basically the same in each instance, suggesting that this information is critical in comprehension of fingerspelled words, there is a trend for increased overlap with later instances as evidenced by Figure 7. Overlap occurs in several features including spread of selected fingers, extension of fingers and thumb, and position of the thumb. In the next section, discreteness and categorization in fingerspelling are discussed.

Discreteness and Categorization in Fingerspelling Contrary to sounds being clearly discrete (or signs in fingerspelling), Port and Leary (2005, p. 955) state that based on data from spoken language, phonological categories “may have both an abstract representation and also something like a cloud of specific examples or episodes of concretely specified events.” This lack of discreteness occurs in fingerspelling as well. “In actual use…the overall effect of fingerspelling is a smooth flow from one handshape to another, resulting not in a series of discrete signals but in one continuous signal” (Wilcox 1992, p.16). As mentioned earlier, because of the overlap in the signs of later instances of M-O-B-I-L-E, it was often difficult to identify a complete sign or even the beginning and ending of many signs. It is this lack of discrete signals that affects the form of the fingerspelled word, offering another explanation for the variation in the structure of rapidly fingerspelled words. As discussed earlier, a preliminary analysis of M-O-B-I-L-E suggests that fingerspelled words have signs that fall into a category rather than into a discrete inventory. There seem to be constraints in the changes of form in that certain features are salient and appear in each instance of overlap with some degree of variation. The addressee may have categories of handshapes available for understanding the signs in a rapidly fingerspelled word. These categories of signs have a central or prototypical sign for each letter along with signs that contain salient features which vary in acceptability. Patrie and Johnson (in press, p.4) state that “rapidly fingerspelled forms are not a sequence of individual signs, each representing a graphic character of the Roman alphabet… They are more likely just a set of movements and postures of the hand that will remind the observer of a sequence they have seen recently.” The signs identified in

Published by Journal of Interpretation 16 Thumann 120 2008 - 2009 Journal of Interpretation

this data may not be identifiable in isolation, however within the context of a fingerspelled word, and in the context of the priming provided by earlier occurrences in a conversation, they are judged as acceptable variations and the fingerspelled word as a whole is identifiable. The categorization of signs allows the interlocutors to comprehend rapidly fingerspelled words even though each sign is not clearly in evidence.

Special Instance of I/L As discussed so far, the majority of the changes in form of M-O-B-I-L-E are a result of compression and categorization. There is an additional reason, which I have not yet discussed, for the compression that occurred in these signs and that is what began as the coalescence of two signs. The combination of the two signs I and L was likely at one time an example of coalescence (two signs combining to create a new sign) but in this data is a lexicalized sign. In every instance of M-O-B-I- L-E, the sign I appeared both alone and with the sign L, but the sign L never occurred alone. The sign IL is the only example in which the combination of features from two signs consistently results in a new sign8. The IL combination is recognized as the sign for I LOVE YOU in American Sign Language (also known as ILY)9, and, because this is such a productive handshape, it is not surprising that it occurs in every instance of M-O-B-I-L-E (as well as every word in this data that has the IL combination). This sign occurs in rapid fingerspelling as well as in careful fingerspelling providing additional evidence that this sign was initially the result of coalescence but has now become a lexicalized sign (Johnson, personal communication). Having identified the special instance of coalescence in this data, I will now review the phonological changes that occur in the rapid fingerspelling of M-O-B-I-L-E.

Discussion As stated earlier, in careful fingerspelling each sign is clearly distinguished from the other and there are instances of whole signs that occur for each “letter” represented. There

8This may be the 27th letter in the fingerspelling alphabet (personal communication, Johnson). 9Further analysis of this sign IL or ILY is beyond the scope of this paper, but it is interesting to note that this sign is a sign in the fingerspelling alphabet as are the various signs for the letter E as discussed by Wilcox (1992).

Published by Journal of Interpretation 17 Thumann Fingerspelling in a Word 121

are transitions that do not appear to be meaningful and are simply the movements required to change handshapes (Liddell & Johnson, 2005). In rapid fingerspelling, however, it appears that more than one thing is happening at the same time. Rather than discrete signs separated by meaningless transitions, the transitions in rapid fingerspelling are meaningful with visible salient features of signs. In effect, this results in signs with overlap. Wilcox (1992) suggests that transitions have to be considered a significant part of the phonetic structure of fingerspelling. He cites other researchers regarding overlap as well; “Richards and Hanson (1985, p.319) mention in passing that ‘in skilled fingerspelling, letters of words are neither produced nor recognized as isolated letters. Rather, one finds evidence for co-articulatory effects in production’” (Wilcox 1992, p.24). In the careful fingerspelling of M-O-B-I-L-E each sign had at least one frame that was a “prototypical” sign (with IL used instead of L), but in each instance of rapid fingerspelling, this did not occur. In rapid fingerspelling, compression and overlap occurred with each sign. M, the first sign for each instance of M-O-B-I-L-E, displayed at least one frame with the whole sign in addition to frames with overlapping signs. Variation occurred, however, even in those frames displaying the whole sign M. Overlap was found with M as well as in each of the remaining signs in rapid fingerspelling. The last sign, E, displayed the least amount of overlap with only six out of 23 instances showing a slight overlap of I with E (the selected finger 4 slightly higher than the other selected fingers). This supports the notion that the first and last sign of a rapidly fingerspelled word are critical to comprehension and therefore are clearly evidenced although other signs may not be (Johnson, personal communication). According to Patrie and Johnson (in press), lexicalized fingerspelled words “have been used so frequently that they become the sign (or one of the signs) for that concept in ASL... when meanings represented by lexical fingerspelling are first introduced, they are almost never fingerspelled carefully on the first presentation…the first presentation is in the highly assimilated, rapid, and distinctive lexicalized form” (Patrie & Johnson, in press, part 4, p.11). To find evidence of which of these explanations may have occurred in this data, I examined

Published by Journal of Interpretation 18 Thumann 122 2008 - 2009 Journal of Interpretation

a lexicalized sign, #ALL10, which was produced six times. I also examined a few instances of nominal signs11, NAME, SCHOOL, SCHOOL-FOR-THE DEAF, to determine if the various instances of the fingerspelled word were functioning as nonce instances or as lexicalized signs. As mentioned earlier, lexicalized signs are fingerspelled words that have been restructured and assume the same formational patterns as many ASL signs. Changes include deletion of letters, changes in movement, and changes in location to the extent that the fingerspelled word takes on the characteristics of an ASL sign (Battison 2003). As stated earlier in this paper, M-O-B-I-L-E does not appear to be lexicalized. There was more variation with the fingerspelled instances of M-O-B-I-L-E than with the lexicalized sign or the nominal signs indicating that M-O-B-I-L-E behaves differently than either. The length of the lexicalized sign #ALL was fairly consistent, ranging from ten to thirteen frames. The length of the nominal signs ranged from ten to twenty-two frames (SCHOOL 10 – 18 frames, SCHOOL-FOR-THE-DEAF 12 – 18 frames with one instance continuing for 26 frames, and NAME 10 – 22 frames). In addition, it is not likely that the rapid fingerspelling of M-O-B-I-L-E has become a sign because it behaves differently than other signs in this text. Based on this comparison, it is possible to say M-O-B-I-L-E is not an ASL sign for these two women but is fingerspelled. Furthermore, because of the lack of consistency in the production of M-O-B-I- L-E, and the fact that there are more than two handshapes in the various instances, it is not lexicalized. Although this study did not focus on lexicalized or nominal signs, this discussion provides some insight into how M-O-B-I-L-E behaves in comparison with other signs produced by the same interlocutors. The changes that occur to M-O-B-I-L-E appear to be a result of the process of language use. The more frequently M-O-B-I- L-E is fingerspelled, the more automated it becomes. As Bybee states, changes in form result naturally during the production of language. The discrete signs of a carefully fingerspelled word are replaced with categorized tokens of use which are accessed by the interlocutors. The changes in production result

10#ALL was the only lexicalized sign identified that had more than 2 instances by each signer. 11The nominal signs are signs which have two movements and are represen- tative of words in ASL.

Published by Journal of Interpretation 19 Thumann Fingerspelling in a Word 123

in increased fluency, and comprehension occurs despite the changes in form. It appears that throughout the conversation, the fingerspelled instances are changing form as a result of the compression and categorization processes that occur with each sign. Further in-depth study is needed to determine how rapidly fingerspelled words, occurring numerous times in the same text, are identified in later instances.

Further Questions As often happens with research, there were problems and unanswered questions with this project. Some of the problems are a result of the data and how it was collected. The positioning of the cameras was such that the angle of the cameras is different for each woman. The view of the hands in each fingerspelled word is not always clear and the data for each signer is not from the same view. This caused some difficulty in comparing the handshapes used for some of the signs and in determining whether or not the thumb is visible, thus making it difficult to determine with any degree of certainty what happens with each sign. Better equipment and better positioning of cameras may result in additional findings. It is clear that with repetition the number of frames for M-O-B-I-L-E was reduced from the first instance to the last, however there were a few instances in the middle in which there were exceptions. The fact that there were shorter instances of M-O-B-I-L-E early in the conversation when the trend is for the shorter words to appear later in the conversation is something that would be worth examining further. Although a preliminary analysis provided some possible reasons for these exceptions, this study did not thoroughly examine the reasons for this occurrence. The findings of this project can not be generalized to all fingerspelled words for several reasons. First, because both women lived in Mobile for a number of years, M-O-B-I-L-E could be going through the process of lexicalization for them and, although it does not behave like a lexicalized word in this text, it could behave differently than other rapidly fingerspelled words. In addition, there could be different fingerspelling properties for names of cities, people, or places. Some of these unanswered questions would be interesting to address in future studies.

Published by Journal of Interpretation 20 Thumann 124 2008 - 2009 Journal of Interpretation

Topics for future research include studying the lengthening of some of the signs in fingerspelled words even when the word itself has been compressed, identifying the factors that affect overlap or deletion of some signs in fingerspelled words, and identifying the salient features of those signs that overlap. Additional studies could look at the following: restrictions on fingerspelling which affect the positioning of signs, determining which signs and/or positions favor compression, and which signs and/or positions favor lengthening. This study is a first step in the study of the rapid fingerspelling. The answers to these questions will provide much needed insight for linguists, second language learners of ASL, ASL teachers, and interpreters.

Summary The length, and thus the form, of the fingerspelled word changes, as evidenced by compression, from careful to rapid fingerspelling. Changes in form result naturally during the production of language (Bybee, 2001). Evidence of the changes is available when one considers the overlap of signs in the data. Overlap occurred in every instance resulting in variation of signs; the signs become compressed and more efficient. Depending on the context, number of repetitions and familiarity of the word, the addressee is able to understand the form of the rapidly fingerspelled word even when there is a great deal of coalescence, deletion, and compression. These changes to the fingerspelled word allow increased efficiency of language use and, although the spelled word may not be understood on its own, in context, the language user is able to make sense of the shortened fingerspelled word.

Published by Journal of Interpretation 21 Thumann Fingerspelling in a Word 125

References

Akamatsu, C.T. (1985). Fingerspelling Formulae, a Word Is More or Less Than the Sum of Its Letters. In Sign Language Research, ed W. Stokoe and V. Volterra. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.

Battison, R. (2003). Lexical Borrowing in American Sign Language. Burtonsville, Maryland: Linstock Press.

Bybee, J. (2001). Phonology and Language Use. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fowler, C. A. & Housum, J. (1987). “Talkers’ Signaling of “New” and “Old” Words in Speech and Listeners’ Perception and Use of the Distinction”. Journal of Memory and Language, 26: 489-504.

Liddell, S. & Johnson, R. E. (2005). Class notes for Linguistics 662, Survey of ASL Phonology, January, 2005 at Gallaudet University, Washington D.C.

Patrie, C. J. & Johnson, R. E. (in press). Fingerspelled Word Recognition: A Rapid Sequential Visual Processing Approach. San Diego: DawnSign Press.

Port, R. & Leary, A. (2005). “Against Formal Phonology”. Language 81(4): 927 – 964.

Richards, J. T & Hanson, V. L. (1985). “Visual and production similarity of the handshapes of the American manual alphabet.” Perception & Psychophysics, 38(4), 311-319

Valli, Lucas & Mulrooney (2005). Linguistics of American Sign Language An Introduction (Fourth Edition). Washington, DC: Clerc Books, Gallaudet University Press.

Wilcox, S. (1992). The Phonetics of Fingerspelling. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Published by Journal of Interpretation 22 Thumann 126 2008 - 2009 Journal of Interpretation

Zakia & Haber (1971). Sequential Letter and Word Recognition in Deaf and Hearing Subjects. Perception and Psychophysics 9(B): 110-114.

Published by Journal of Interpretation 23